Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9970 (RAJ)

VASUDEV, SON OF KEWALRAM v. RAMDHAN KHERIA S/O SH. NEKIRAM

CW/11186/2026 · 2026-07-07

Anand Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:25270] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11186/2026 URN: CW / 24829U / 2026 1. Vasudev, Son Of Kewalram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Sahubass Teh-Kishangarh-Bas, Distt.-Alwar 2. Maya Devi, Aged About 50 Years, Wife Of Vasudev 3. Madan Lal, Aged About 60 Years, Son Of Kewalram 4. Rajanibai, Aged About 45 Years, D/o Kewalram 5. Bachchi Bai @ Nachchi Bai, D/o Notanmal, Aged About 66 Years, All The Above Persons2 To 5 Are Residents Of The Village -Sahubass, Tehsil-Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar). At Presant R/o 7A Mitrakunj Society, Sakeer Road, Duliya (Maharastra) ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus 1. Ramdhan Kheria S/o Sh. Nekiram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o-Village-Jataka, Teh- Kishangarh Bass, Distt-Alwar 2. Nekiram, Aged About 103 Years, S/o Harnaram 3. Balwant, Aged About 60 Years, Son Of Nekiram 4. Bhimraj, Aged About 65 Years, Son Of Nekiram 5. Rohitash, Aged About 30 Years, Son Of Darempal 6. Jaswant, Aged About 25 Years, Son Of Darempal 7. Jotram, Aged About 55 Years, Son Of Darempal 8. Balveer, Aged About 52 Years, Son Of Heeralal 9. Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, Son Of Ratanlal 10. Sethi, Aged About 35 Years, Son Of Ratanlal 11. Raghuveer, Aged About 55 Years, Son Of Shriram 12. Satveer Son Of Shriram, Aged About 50 Years, All R/o Village -Jataka Teh- Kishangarh Bas Distt- Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mamta Advocate For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/07/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:25270] (2 of 2) [CW-11186/2026] 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a limited prayer to issue a direction to Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarg Bas, District Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'SDO') to decide Revenue Suit No.143/2012 pending before it. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above revenue suit was filed by the respondents in the year 2012 before the SDO, and despite lapse of 14 years, the suit has not been decided and the same is pending before the SDO. 3. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarg Bas, District Alwar to decide the Revenue Suit No.143/2012 pending before it expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after affording equal opportunity of hearing to the parties as also in accordance with law. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 29/DIVYA