HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1297/2025 Gopal Son Of Shri Nanu, R/o Village Nedliya, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Kamladevi W/o Shri Madansingh, R/o Village Nedliya, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 2. Madansingh S/o Shri Nanu, R/o Village Nedliya , Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 3. Shankarsingh S/o Shri Choga, R/o Village Nedliya , Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 4. Kishansingh S/o Shri Choga, R/o Village Nedliya , Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Choga, R/o Village Nedliya , Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 6. Arjun S/o Shri Bhoma, R/o Village Nedliya , Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 7. Ravikant Sharma S/o Shri Satyanarayan, R/o Virah Chouk, Choti Basti, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 8. Bhumkia D/o Shri Ravikant Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Virah Chouk, Choti Basti, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 9. Keshvacharya S/o Shri Ravikant Sharma, Aged About 16 Years, ( Minor Through Natural Guardian Ravikant Sharma), R/o Virah Chouk, Choti Basti, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 10. Shashikant Sharma S/o Ravikant Sharma, R/o Virah Chouk, Choti Basti, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Pushakr, Distt. Ajmer. 12. Sub-Registrar, Pushkar. 13. Mohan S/of Nanu, R/of Village Nedilya, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 14. Smt. Radha W/of Nanu, R/of Village Nedilya, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 15. Smt. Taradevi D/o Shri Nanu W/o Shri Sobadar Singh, (2 of 4) [CW-1297/2025] R/o Kanvlai, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. 16. Sohan S/o Shri Nanu, R/o Village Nedliya, Tehsil Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrey Gaharana Mr. G.K. Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), the instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. By passing the order dated 28.11.2024, the Board has rejected the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ‘RAA’). 3. By passing the order dated 04.08.2022, the RAA has partly allowed the appeal submitted by the respondents against an interim status quo order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short ‘the SDO’). While partly allowing the aforesaid appeal, the RAA granted liberty to the respondents to file an application under Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC and the SDO was further directed to dispose of the said application within a period of 30 days, failing which the interim status quo order dated 20.03.2018 would stand vacated automatically. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such provision under Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC for passing such per- (3 of 4) [CW-1297/2025] emptory order. Counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under the aforesaid Order of the CPC, it is incumbent upon the concerned to make all possible endeavours to decide the stay application and the application submitted by the other side under Order 39 Rule 3-A of the CPC within a period thirty days, but such directions in per-emptory form cannot be issued, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the Court of SDO along with a temporary injunction application, wherein, an interim order was passed on 20.03.2018, by which the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the position of the site and record and the case was posted for next date. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the RAA, which was partly allowed vide order dated 04.08.2022 and a liberty was granted to the respondents to submit an application under Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC for vacation of the aforesaid order. A direction was issued to the SDO to decide the said application within a period of thirty days, failing which the interim order would stand vacated automatically. 7. So far as the direction No.1 i.e. disposal of the application submitted by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC is concerned, there is no illegality in the said order, but so far as the second direction is concerned that in case, application is not decided within above stipulated time, the interim status order, (4 of 4) [CW-1297/2025] stands vacated automatically, such direction passed by the RAA is not in consonance with the provisions of CPC. 8. In view of the discussions made herein above, the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the RAA stands quashed and set-aside to that extent only. The SDO is directed to decide the application submitted by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of thirty days, as per the directions issued by the RAA and pass appropriate orders on the stay application, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both sides. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KUD/12