HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13269/2025 1. Gyarsi Lal, S/o Prabhu 2. Nandkishore, S/o Prabhu 3. Mahendra, S/o Prabhu 4. Vimal, S/o Prabhu 5. Hanuman, S/o Prabhu 6. Hemraj S/o Prabhu All Resident Of Bhanpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rampal, S/o Dhannaram 2. Ramswaroop, S/o Chanda 3. Sujaram, S/o Chanda 4. Bansilal, S/o Chanda 5. Babulal, S/o Chanda 6. Badam Devi, W/o Ramlal 7. Ramlal, S/o Chanda 8. Shanti Devi, W/o Shyojiram 9. Ramawatar, S/o Mangilal 10. Sanjha, W/o Prahlad 11. Badam, W/o Laxman 12. Kamla, W/o Moolchand 13. Sarju, W/o Prabhu 14. Ratani Devi, W/o Chogalal 15. Prabhati, W/o Gopi 16. Chanda, S/o Seva 17. Banwarilal, S/o Dhannalal 18. Babulal S/o Dhannaram, All Resident Of Bhanpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur. 19. Rajendra, S/o Gopal 20. Ganniram, S/o Swaroopa 21. Mohanlal, S/o Swaroopa (2 of 4) [CW-13269/2025] 22. Sarjudevi W/o Panchuram, All Resident Of Bhanpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur. 23. Chitar, S/o Rughnath 24. Ramsahay, S/o Rughnath 25. Shyoji S/o Rughnath, All Resident Bhanpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur. 26. Sub Registrar, Madhorajpura, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur. 27. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Madhorajpura, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/09/2025 1. By way of filing instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short “the Board”) by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer has been rejected. 2. By passing the order dated 19.03.2025, the Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC submitted by the respondents seeking amendment in the application under Section 251 A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for opening the way on the subject land, an application has been submitted by the respondents under Section 251 A of the Act of 1955 and (3 of 4) [CW-13269/2025] during pendency of the said application, an amendment application was submitted by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was opposed by the petitioners by way of filing a detailed comprehensive reply, but without considering the reply and the submissions raised by the petitioners, the Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the said application vide order dated 19.3.2025 in a cursory manner without recording any reasons. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.03.2025, the revision petition was preferred before the Board, but the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.07.2025, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 251 A of the Act of 1955 has been submitted by the respondents against the petitioners before the court of Sub- Divisional Officer and during pendency of the said application, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was submitted seeking amendment in the aforesaid application, which was opposed by the petitioners by way of filing a detailed reply. 6. It appears that without considering the contents of the reply and submissions raised by the petitioners, the aforesaid application submitted by the respondents has been allowed in one single line without recording any reasons. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, whenever any application seeking amendment in the application/suit is filed by either side, it is duty of the court concerned to decide the application this way or that way, but the reasons are required to (4 of 4) [CW-13269/2025] be recorded, but in the instant case, the application has been decided in one single line in a very cursory manner by the Sub- Divisional Officer against the spirit of the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 8. On this count alone, the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 as well as subsequent order dated 17.07.2025 are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be and are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass fresh orders on the application submitted by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after affording due opportunity of hearing to both sides by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. 10. It is made clear that this ex-parte order has been passed by this Court in order to avoid further delay in disposal of the application filed by the respondents under Section 251 A of the Act of 1955 and application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the aforesaid application. 11. The respondents would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order, in case they feel aggrieved. 12. Needless to observe that the Sub-Divisional Officer would decide the application filed by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/32