Rajasthan High Court
CW/19443/2025 of GORDHAN SON OF GOKUL Vs CHHOTU ALIAS JAGDISH SON OF KAJJA on 13 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19443/2025 CNR: RJHC021086722025 | URN: CW / 43503U / 2025 1 Gordhan Son Of Gokul, (Deceased Through Heirs) 1.1 Hansraj Adopted Son Of Gordhan Son Of Bhagchand, Resident Of Village Chandsen, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer.
[2026:RJ-JP:31970]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19443/2025
CNR: RJHC021086722025 | URN: CW / 43503U / 2025
Gordhan Son Of Gokul, (Deceased Through Heirs)
1.1
Hansraj Adopted Son Of Gordhan Son Of Bhagchand, Resident Of Village Chandsen, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
Chhotu Alias Jagdish Son Of Kajja, Resident Of Village Chandsen Tehsil Nasirabad District Ajmer.
Mrs. Razia, Wife Of Nasibbeg, Resident Of Village Zilawada.
Bhagchand Son Of Roda, (Deceased Through Heirs)
3.1
Geeta, Wife Of Late. Bhagchand
3.2
Omprakash, Son Of Late. Bhagchand
3.3
Manthra, Daughter Of Late Bhagchand, Resident Of Village Chandsen, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer
Sub-Registrar, Through Tehsildar Nasirabad, District Ajmer.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Learned Tehsildar, Nasirabad, District Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Yashvardhan Tolani
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Dharmendra Coudhary for
respondent No.1
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
13/08/2026
1. Instant writ petition has been preferred by plaintiff, who was respondent before the First Appellate Court, feeling aggrieved by condoning the delay in filing the First Appeal by the defendants.
[2026:RJ-JP:31970] (2 of 2) [CW-19443/2025]
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that during course of this writ petition, the First Appeal itself has matured for final hearing and in that view instead of pressing this writ petition on the issue of condonation of delay, petitioner wants to make his submissions on merits in the appeal before the Appellate Court and in that view, he seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition.
3. Counsel for the respondents-defendants has no objection.
4. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Pcg/76