[2025:RJ-JP:26307] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 21/2019 1. Rangilal S/o Bhullan (Deceased) Through His Lrs, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Town Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan 1/1. Smt. Karai W/o Late Shri Rangilal, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Town Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan 1/2. Rajaram S/o Late Shri Rangilal, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Town Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan 1/3. Ramvilas S/o Late Shri Rangilal, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Town Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan 1/4. Ramkhiladi S/o Late Shri Rangilal, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Town Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan 1/5. Vinod S/o Late Shri Rangilal, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Town Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan 1/6. Anguri D/o Rangilal W/o Munnalal, R/o Rajamandi Agra Uttarpradesh 1/7. Ramwati D/o Rangilal W/o Vijaypal, R/o Village Naragi (Tundala) Agra Uttarpradesh ----Petitioners Versus 1. Nirmala W/o Ramsingh, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Tehsil Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan At Present Dejoi Station Near Hawai Adda Soron Shukar Kshetra District Kasganj Uttarpradesh Mob. 9193149194 2. Amarsingh S/o Ramsingh, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Bari Tehsil Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan 3. Ghanshyam S/o Ramsingh, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Bari Tehsil Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan 4. Vishnu S/o Mathura Prasad, R/o Mohalla Chhapaiti Pada Bari Tehsil Bari District Dholpur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:26307] (2 of 3) [CR-21/2019] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 15/07/2025 The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Badi, Dholpur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 23/2004 titled as "Rangilal Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors.", whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff under the provisions of Order IX Rule 5 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the original plaintiff filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed and specific performance of contract against the respondents-defendants (for short 'the defendants') in which due to unavoidable reasons, plaintiffs could not file the summons for the defendant No. 1. Although, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were sons of the defendant No. 1, but the trial Court vide order dated 09.08.2016 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on account of non-compliance of provisions under Order IX Rule 5 CPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Badi (for short 'the first appellate Court') and the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal on account of non-maintainability. Thereafter, he filed revision petition before this Court on 09.01.2019. So, delay in filing the present revision petition be condoned, the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the original plaintiff be restored. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that plaintiffs filed present revision petition after an [2025:RJ-JP:26307] (3 of 3) [CR-21/2019] inordinate delay. Despite the order of the trial Court, they had not file summons for the defendant No. 1. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the present revision petition filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that defendant No. 1 is mother of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and due to unavoidable reasons, the original plaintiff could not file summons for summoning of the defendant No. 1 and thereafter, he preferred an appeal against the order dated 09.08.2016 before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court vide order dated 28.11.2018 dismissed the appeal on account of non-maintainability. Therefore, the delay in filing the present revision petition is bonafide and requires to be condoned. The trial Court wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the original plaintiff is restored subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- by the plaintiffs to be deposited with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.08.2025. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/38