[2026:RJ-JP:16430] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5667/1998 Smt. Siya widow of Late Shri Haridas Aged about 60 years, Resident of Nagala Singhada, Tehsil Bayana Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer through its Registrar. 2. District Collector, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 3. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Bayana Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 4. Murti Mandir Shri Sita Ramji Through its Pujari Ram Babu S/o Late Shri Haridas R/o Nagala Singhada, Tehsil Bayana Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 5. Mantooley S/o Phonda R/o Village Nagala Singhada Tehsil – Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.M. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 18/04/2026 1. The matter comes up on Application No.1/2025 filed by the applicant-respondent No.5 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking dismissal of the writ petition on account of abatement as the sole petitioner – Smt. Siya widow of Late Shri Haridas expired way back on 08.10.2013 and no steps have been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner to place her legal heirs on record. [2026:RJ-JP:16430] (2 of 3) [CW-5667/1998] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the factum of death of the sole petitioner on 18.10.2013 and submits that repeated efforts have been made by him to contact the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, however, no response has been received. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the application filed by the applicant-respondent No.5 under Order XXII of CPC is not maintainable as the said provisions are not applicable upon proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus, the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. In repudiation, Mr. B.M. Sharma, learned counsel for applicant-respondent No.5 submits that the present application has been rightly filed as the death of the sole petitioner took place on 08.10.2013 and more than twelve years have passed thereafter, which by itself invites dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel submits that though the provisions of Order XXII of CPC may not apply to the writ petition ipso facto, however, considering the fact that the sole petitioner expired way back in the year 2013, and a period of more than twelve years have passed thereby, the present writ petition cannot be maintained beyond a particular point. 6. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puran Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) SCC 205. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. While it is true that the provisions of Order XXII of CPC are not applicable upon the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the [2026:RJ-JP:16430] (3 of 3) [CW-5667/1998] Constitution of India, however, at the same time, this Court has to be conscious with respect to lapse of time and the period which has gone by after the death of the sole petitioner. 9. In the instant case, the sole petitioner has expired way back on 18.10.2013, and thus, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the present writ petition, more so when none has approached this Court on behalf of the petitioner. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite his efforts to contact the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, no response has been received by him. 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puran Singh (supra) has specifically held that the High Court has to be conscious with respect to the lapse of time, and while the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3(2) of CPC, may not be applicable upon the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, taking overall view of the matter, there is no occasion to continue further with the present writ petition in the obtained circumstances. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution and the Application No. 1/2025 filed by the applicant-respondent No.5 stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /03