Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5043 (RAJ)

KANHIYA LAL S/O LATE SHRI PREM CHAND v. CHATARA @ CHATURBHUJ S/O LATE SHRI NENGA

CR/249/2019 · 2026-03-06

Maneesh Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:9820] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 249/2019 1. Kanhiya Lal S/o Late Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 50 Years, 2. Suresh S/o Late Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 45 Years, 3. Raja Ram S/o Late Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 40 Years, 4. Deshraj S/o Late Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 35 Years, 5. Sagar S/o Late Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 25 Years, 6. Laturi Bai W/o Late Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 70 Years, All R/o Village Tathed, Near Ramdev Temple, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj) 7. Maya D/o Late Shri Prem Chand W/o Shri Sonu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Prem Nagar-2, Near Vijayvargiya Provision Store, Tejaji Ka Chowk, Kota (Raj) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Chatara @ Chaturbhuj S/o Late Shri Nenga, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Village Tathed, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj) 2. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Ladpura, Kota (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 06/03/2026 1. Vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed by this Court, in application (I.A. No. 1/2025) filed under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC, the following order was passed: [2026:RJ-JP:9820] (2 of 2) [CR-249/2019] "Matter comes up on an application (I.A. No.1/2025) under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC for bringing the factum of death of respondent No.1 on record. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The factum of death of respondent No.1 is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) seeks time to do the needful in this regard. List after four weeks." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, despite all possible efforts, the petitioners have not provided updated instructions in the present revision petition. 3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to pursue the present revision petition. 4. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution in the absence of proper instructions. 5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 6. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to move an application for revival, in case, any cause of action survives. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/31