Rajasthan High Court
CW/7562/2026 of SHRIMATI PUSHPA DEVI WIFE OF LATE SHRI RAJA HARI SINGH Vs RATAN KUMAR SONI SON OF SHRI KISHAN SONI on 19 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7562/2026 CNR: RJHC020347332026 | URN: CW / 16556U / 2026 1. Shrimati Pushpa Devi Wife of Late Shri Raja Hari Singh, Aged About 85 Years, Resident of Raja Uday Singh Ji Ki Haveli, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur. 2. Raja Raghuvendra
[2026:RJ-JP:33299]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7562/2026
CNR: RJHC020347332026 | URN: CW / 16556U / 2026
1.
Shrimati Pushpa Devi Wife of Late Shri Raja Hari Singh, Aged About 85 Years, Resident of Raja Uday Singh Ji Ki Haveli, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur.
2.
Raja Raghuvendra Singh Son of Shri Raja Hari Singh, Aged About 53 Years, Resident of Raja Uday Singh Ji Ki Haveli, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Ratan Kumar Soni Son of Shri Kishan Soni, Aged About 55 Years, Resident of Makaan No. 08, Gurunanak Colony, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Ms. Palak Saraswat for
Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Saraswat
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
19/08/2026
1. Petitioners have preferred instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby and whereunder the ex parte final order dated 07.07.2015 passed on the Original Application No. 414/2015 by the Rent Tribunal, has been set aside and Original Application has been remanded to the Rent Tribunal to decide the afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent-tenant.
2. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioners, having instructions from petitioners, does not want to press this writ
[2026:RJ-JP:33299] (2 of 2) [CW-7562/2026] petition on merits and submits that the original application was filed by petitioners way back in the year 2014 whereupon due service of notices were affected but respondent-tenant did not appeared, hence, the petition was allowed vide ex parte order dated 07.07.2015, however, since now the order has been set aside and petition has been remanded back to decide afresh, therefore, in such circumstances, at least, directions be issued to expedite the trial on the Original Application.
3. Taking into consideration the limited prayer of counsel for petitioners and the fact that original application was filed way back in the year 2014, it is hereby observed that the Rent Tribunal may proceed on the Original Application after giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondents in accordance with law, but proceedings may be expedited and no unwarranted adjournments on mere askance of both parties, may not be granted.
4. Both parties are expected to cooperate with the Rent Tribunal to decide the Original Application expeditiously.
5. With aforesaid observations, instant writ petition stands disposed of as not press.
6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the Rent Tribunal for compliance. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 46/NITIN