[2025:RJ-JP:4160] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15683/2024 1. Tejaram Son Of Bhanwar, Aged About 65 Years 2. Nanchhilal Son Of Bhanwar 3. Rameshwarlal Son Of Bhanwar 4. Ramswaroop Son Of Bhanwar 5. Smt. Mhori W/o Bhanwar, (Died) 6. Prabhat Son Of Chhotu All are Resident Of Village Bhambhoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. Ramesh Son Of Ramgopal 2. Mahesh Son Of Ramgopal 3. Narayani D/o Ramgopal 4. Bhuri D/o Ramgopal 5. Beena D/o Ramgopal Respondents No.1 to 5 are Resident Of Village Bhambhoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.). 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 30/01/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity “the BoR”) in Appeal No.1094/2024 filed by the petitioners whereby, their appeal has been dismissed being barred by limitation. The relevant facts in brief are that Ramgopal- predecessor- in-interest of the respondents No.1 to 5 filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the petitioners and the respondent No.6 wherein, preliminary decree was passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:4160] (2 of 3) [CW-15683/2024] Court of Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 10.02.2004 and the final decree was passed vide judgment dated 30.11.2011. The first appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur vide judgment dated 08.08.2017 and the second appeal preferred thereagaint has been dismissed by the BoR vide order impugned dated 09.05.2024 as stated hereinabove. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for petitioners submits that while dismissing the appeal, the BoR did not appreciate that they were able to get certified copies on 25.01.2024 and within a period of twenty days thereafter, they have preferred the second appeal. He further submits that it was ignored that one of the petitioners namely Shri Rameshwar had injury in his leg. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 09.05.2024 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the BoR for hearing the appeal on its merit. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that initially, the petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of a revision petition which came to be dismissed by a Single Bench of the BoR vide order dated 26.10.2023 as not maintainable. However, the petitioners were granted a liberty to assail the judgment dated 08.08.2017 by way of an appeal with an observation that in case, the appeal is preferred within a period of a month, it would be treated to be within limitation. However, the petitioners preferred the appeal on 15.02.2024, i.e., much beyond the period of one [2025:RJ-JP:4160] (3 of 3) [CW-15683/2024] month for which liberty was granted to them while dismissing their revision petition. The BoR has, while dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the second appeal, held that there was no document on record in support of the contention that one of petitioners has received injury in his leg. It was also observed that there are five more appellants other than Shri Rameshwar and there was not a whisper of averment as to why they could not have preferred the appeal in time. Although, learned counsel for the petitioners has averred that they were able to obtain certified copies on 25.01.2024; however, this Court is not apprised as to when they applied for getting the same. Even otherwise, it has been held by the BoR that even after obtaining the certified copies on 25.01.2024, the appeal has been preferred on 15.02.2024, i.e., with a delay of about 20 days without offering any explanation for it. This delay of twenty days gains importance in view of the fact that the petitioners were given a month’s time to prefer the appeal by the BoR while dismissing their revision petition vide order dated 26.10.2023. In view of the aforesaid findings, which are based on appreciation of the material on record, this Court finds no occasion to interfere in the same under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/11