1 3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3706/1994 (Mangla Ram Vs. Board of Revenue Ajmer & Ors.) Date of Order :: 27th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.J.R.Beniwal) Mr.B.L.Choudhary),for the petitioner BY THE COURT The matter has been placed in default category for the requisites having not been put in for service on the respondents Nos. 4/2 to 4/5 & 4/7 and steps having not been taken in relation to the deceased respondents Nos.4/1 and 4/6. Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses his inability to take further steps in the matter with the submissions that despite repeated communications, the petitioner has not extended appropriate instructions. Perusal of the record makes out that a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and perpetual injunction as filed by the deceased respondent No.4 Ghamendiya @ Ghan Shyam (Revenue Suit No.31/1970) was decreed by the Assistant Collector, Nagaur on 17.11.1975. The first appeal taken by the present petitioner Mangla Ram along with the co-defendant Nenu Nath (Appeal No.12/1989) came to be rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority (first) Jodhpur on 25.11.1989. Both the courts specifically found with reference to the oral and documentary 2 evidence on record that the land in question had been regularly in cultivatory possession of the plaintiff. The petitioner attempted to take second appeal to the Board of Revenue that came to be dismissed on 28.01.1994 after the Board found the matter concluded with concurrent findings of facts that were not shown to be perverse or suffering from any error. The questions involved in this writ petition are essentially between the petitioner Mangla Ram (who has also expired and whose legal representatives have been taken on record) and plaintiff-respondent No.4 (whose legal representatives are the respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/7). Though respondent No.4/1 was the wife of the plaintiff and may be her legal representatives are already on record but then, the respondent No.4/6 Amar Chand, a son of the plaintiff, is reported to have expired and steps have not been taken in his relation. The petitioners have further failed to take steps to get the respondents Nos. 4/2 to 4/5 & 4/7 served and the matter is pending ever since 03.03.2008 for taking requisite steps. Steps having not been taken and counsel for the petitioner expressing want of requisite instructions, this writ petition is required to be dismissed for non-prosecution. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. 3 (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni