Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6052 (RAJ)

MAHAVEER PRASAD v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

WRES/125/2024 · 2025-02-07

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:5586] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 125/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12994/2023 1. Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Ghisaram 2. Omprakash, Aged About 52 Years, S/o Ram Chandra 3. Daleep Kumar, S/o Ramchandra (Deceased) 3/1. Mukesh, Sandeep, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Late Daleep Kumar 4. Mohan, Aged About 45 Years, S/o Ram Chandra 5. Rajuram, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Ramchandra 6. Vijay Singh, Aged About 45 Years, S/o Ram Kumar 7. Rohitash Kailash Chandra, Aged About 37 Years, S/o Sawal Ram 8. Amar Singh, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Ghisa Ram 9. Nathu Ram S/o Khem Chand, (Deceased) 9/1. Joginder, Rajendra, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Late Shree Nath Ram 10. Munsi Ram, Aged About 51 Years, S/o Khemchand 11. Gyan Chandra, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Gajanand 12. Neeru Ashok, Aged About 45 Years, S/o Chiranji Lal 13. Kanwar Singh, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Parbhati Lal 14. Bhoop Singh Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Parbhati Lal 15. Subhash, Aged About 57 Years, S/o Ganpat Ram 16. Jawan Singh S/o Prabhu Dayal, (Deceased) 16/1. Sunil Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, S/o Late Jawan Singh 17. Shyam Lal, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Chandu Ram 18. Surendra, Aged About 31 Years, S/o Harpal 19. Naffe Singh, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Late Yaadram 20. Dungar Singh, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Prabhati Lal 21. Kesar S/o Jokhi Ram, Aged About 50 Years, All Are Residents Of Nawta, Post Office, Pacheri Choti, Tehsil Bhuhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The District Collector, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 3. The Additional District Collector, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). [2025:RJ-JP:5586] (2 of 3) [WRES-125/2024] 4. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Singhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 5. The Sub Tehsildar, Singhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Balwada For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/02/2025 1. Instant restoration application has been filed by petitioners, seeking restoration of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12994/2023, which came to be dismissed due to non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.12.2023. 2. Counsel for applicants submits that due to bona fide error defects could not be removed, however, he undertakes to remove the same soon after restoration of the writ petition. 3. Taking into consideration the reasons mentioned in the application and undertaking of counsel for applicants to remove the defect(s), this Court deems it just and proper to allow the instant application, subject to deposition of cost. 4. Accordingly, the instant restoration application is allowed and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12994/2023 is allowed to be restored to its original number, subject to condition of deposition of a cost of Rs.1,000/- with the Litigants Welfare Fund through Banker’s Cheque/ DD in the name of Registrar General LWFA, Rajasthan High Court within a period of four weeks. Receipt of deposition of cost amount be placed in the file. However, in case of non- [2025:RJ-JP:5586] (3 of 3) [WRES-125/2024] deposition of cost amount within the stipulated time period, as directed hereinabove, the restoration application be treated as dismissed. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/66