Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5681 (RAJ)

DHANENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE DHANRAJ JAIN v. FAKIR MOHAMMAD MACHHLI VALE

CSA/2/2026 · 2026-03-27

Maneesh Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:12955] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 2/2026 Dhanendra Kumar S/o Late Dhanraj Jain, aged about 68 Years, Resident of Ghantaghar Ke Pass, Baran Vyvasayik Address- Mangrol Road, Baran. ----Appellant Versus 1. Fakir Mohammad aged about 70 Years, Machhali Vale, Resident of-Talab Pada, Bhaijan Ke Pas, Mangrol Road, Baran District Baran Rajasthan. 2. Shakoor Mohammad aged about 62 Years s/o Gafoor Master Sahab, Vyvasay Patthar Ka Stock Resident-Purana Gadi Adda Baran. 3. Sheikh Bahadur Mistri, aged about 52 Years, Resident of Anjuman Talab Pada Baran. 4. Jakir Mansoori S/o Late Subhan, Resident of Maliyon Ke Mandir Ke Pas, Bheruji Ka Chock Talab Pada Baran. 5. Akeel Mohammad S/o Jumma Mohammad, Aged About 48 Years, Resident of Secretary Anjuman Talab Pada, Baran. 6. Ajeej, aged about 55 Years, Through Bombay Steel Purana Gadi Adda Baran. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Ayushi Srivastav for Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Srivastav For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 27/03/2026 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025, instead of filing miscellaneous appeal, due to bona fide inadvertence, the present second appeal has been filed. Therefore, she seeks [2026:RJ-JP:12955] (2 of 2) [CSA-2/2026] permission to withdraw the present second appeal with liberty to file civil miscellaneous appeal. 2. In view of the submissions so made, the present second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file civil miscellaneous appeal to assail the order. 3. The Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 and judgment and decree dated 23.05.2022 as well as copy of the Vakalatnama to the appellant after retaining photocopy of the same. 4. However, considering the fact that the present civil second appeal remained pending since 28.11.2025 to 27.03.2026, therefore, the appellant herein is at liberty to move an application for condonation of delay in terms of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /22