Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Manisha Surana, for the respondents. The instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dt. 27.11.2006 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9009/2006 dismissing the same. It is delayed by 800 days.
(2.) ACCORDING to the applicants/respondents, though the writ petition above was dismissed on 27.11.2006, they being out of their district to earn their livelihood, were unaware thereof. The applicant No. 2 returned home in January 2009, and thereafter, he fell ill. Having recovered from his illness, he contacted his counsel in the last week of March 2009 and having learnt that the writ petition had been dismissed, he thereafter, without any further delay, preferred the appeal. The explanation furnished, to say the least, is far from convincing. Noticeably, there are five applicants/appellants and the purported cause pertains only to applicant No. 2. Though a statement has been made that he had been looking after the matter, having regard to the enormity of the delay, in our opinion, the same is not an extenuating factor.
(3.) IN the interest of justice however, we have examined, to the extent necessary, the relevant facts. The case has a chequered history. According to the applicants/appellants, one Moti Das who was the owner in possession of the land involved, had executed a Will in respect thereof in favour of one Narottam Das S/o. Kunj Bihari on 04.09.1953/04.09.1954. The legatee on the death of the testator obtained possession of the land, and thereafter, sold it to Moti Lal, the predecessor -in -interest of the appellants, on 24.01.1970 through a registered sale letter on the basis whereof, it was mutated in his name in the revenue records on 03.02.1970. While the predecessor -in -interest of the applicants/appellants was thus in possession of the land, the respondent No. 5 i.e. Temple Shri Murli Manoharji Trustee, Sanadhya Brahmin Panchayat, Baran (for short, hereafter referred to as 'Temple/Trust') inducted one Ganpat Lal into the land for cultivating the same. To resist such a move, the predecessor -in -interest of the applicants/appellants instituted a suit under Sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was however, dismissed on 31.12.1980. The appeal preferred against the same under Sec. 223 of the Act was allowed. The appeal against this decision eventually got abated due to the demise of Moti Lal on 19.07.1970 and for the failure to substitute his heirs and legal representatives. Inspite of that however, the name of the Trust/Temple continued to remain in the revenue records.;