SB.CIVIL REVIEW PETTION NO.2/2008 – SMT. MOHINI AND ANR. V/S PRITHVIRAJ AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.12.5.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.2/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.166/2003 Smt. Mohini and anr. versus Prithvi Raj and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. S.D.Rajpurohit, for the petitioner Mr.Girish Joshi, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12th May, 2008. 1. Heard the learned counsel. 2. This review petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.2006 by which the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, J.) found that no case for interference in the review petition was made out, hence, the review petition was dismissed. SB.CIVIL REVIEW PETTION NO.2/2008 – SMT. MOHINI AND ANR. V/S PRITHVIRAJ AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.12.5.2008 2/3 3. The revision petition was filed against the order dtd.1.10.2002 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Misc. Case No.13/1989 by which the learned trial Court dismissed the application under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking to maintain the application as pauper without payment of court fee. The learned trial Court found that since the applicant Rinku and others had made an application to the Court on 15.4.2002 that they did not want to maintain the said claim application as pauper as they were not the persons without means, therefore, the said application may be dismissed. Accordingly, the learned trial Court rejected the said application by the impugned order dtd.1.10.2002. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajpurohit submits that firstly this Court while passing the order dtd.18.1.2006 did not allow sufficient opportunity as the then counsel Sh. S.D. Rajpurohit could not remain present in the Court on account of unavoidable reasons and his junior appeared in the matter and sought time and secondly, he submitted that that the matter before the trial Court on the said fixed date 1.10.2002 was listed for orders on application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by the parents of the deceased SB.CIVIL REVIEW PETTION NO.2/2008 – SMT. MOHINI AND ANR. V/S PRITHVIRAJ AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.12.5.2008 3/3 who were proforma respondents in the said petition and wanted to be transposed as the petitioners. 5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that on the application of even some of the applicants, if the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C., this Court does not find any force in the review petition and no interference is called for in the order dtd.18.1.2006. The said review petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the non-decision on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. they will be free to approach the learned trial Court or further appellate Court as the case may be in accordance with law. 6. With these observations, this review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.53 Ss/-