[2026:RJ-JP:8605] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 72/2026 Ranmal S/o Late Shri Sonya, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Sawai Gator, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Heeralal Meena S/o Late Shri Mangalram Meena, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Sawai Getor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 2. Maharana Pratap Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Reg. No. 2928/L, Address D-10/48, Chitrakoot Nagar, Jaipur through its Secretary/President. 3. Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Indira Gandhi Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/02/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 143 days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he could not get knowledge about the impugned order, therefore, the delay of 143 days occurred in filing the present civil revision petition. 3. Heard the submission made at bar and perused the material available on record. 4. From the perusal of the record and the impugned order, it is reflected that the impugned order has been passed in the [2026:RJ-JP:8605] (2 of 2) [CR-72/2026] presence of learned counsel for the petitioner and the explanation so pleaded in the application does not seems to be bona fide and cannot be construed as sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 143 days. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash1, has held as under: "10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief." 6. Thus, in view of the above judgment, the explanation given for the delay of 143 days in filing the present civil revision petition cannot be accepted. 7. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. 8. All the pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-73 1 2024 INSC 891