1 15 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 511/2000. Bapu Lal & Ors. Vs. B.O.R., Ajmer & Ors. .. Date of Order :: 2nd February 2010. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sanjay Mathur, for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel. Mr. Ravi Bhansali ] Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat ], for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 22.03.2000 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183/1994. While considering the matter on 22.03.2000, the learned Single Judge observed that it were an old petition of the year 1994 and listed for early hearing but no one was present either for the petitioner or for the respondents; that the petitioner was enjoying ex parte stay order; and that the learned counsel for the petitioner had not shown the courtesy even to make a mention. The learned Single Judge further observed that in the ordinary circumstances, the Court would have dismissed the matter in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner but that would result in moving of the application and then, restoration of the petition and, therefore, it was appropriate to deal with the matter on merits. 2 However, thereafter, the learned Single Judge merely observed that the petition had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having a narrow and limited scope; and that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned orders as passed by the authorities particularly when all the Courts below concurrently found against the petitioners. The learned Single Judge further observed that the petition was also required to be dismissed as the petitioners had not joined the State of Rajasthan as party; and with such observations proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. It is noticed that the writ petition was filed essentially in challenge to the orders passed on 16.08.1993 (Annex.17) and 09.06.1988 (Annex.15) by the Board of Revenue in the reference proceedings whereby the entries made by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Mandalgarh on 14.08.1981 in favour of the petitioners-appellants in the revenue records were set aside. The petitioners had stated the grounds in the writ petition, inter alia, on the very competence of the reference proceedings. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is difficult to make out that the merits of the case were considered by the learned Single Judge. In the totality of the circumstances, we consider it appropriate that the matter be remanded for consideration afresh by the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, the facts cannot be ignored that the petitioners-appellants did not appear when the case was called out and not even a 3 mention was made with the result that the writ petition was decided in absence; and now, the matter is required to be remanded that would elongate the life of the litigation for which, primarily, the petitioners-appellants are required to be held responsible. In the aforesaid view of the matter and the given circumstances, we consider it appropriate to saddle the petitioners-appellants with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). The parties have fairly agreed that the amount of costs shall be deposited by the petitioners- appellants with the State Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, this special appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order dated 22.03.2000 is set aside; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183/1994 shall stand restored to its number subject to the condition that an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards costs shall be deposited by the petitioner-appellants with the State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within 30 days from today and the receipt of deposit of the costs shall be produced in the Registry. Upon the petitioners-appellants carrying out compliance, the writ petition be restored to its number and be placed for consideration afresh before the concerned Bench. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (JAGDISH BHALLA),CJ. /Mohan/