{"id":9295,"date":"2026-08-07T10:05:32","date_gmt":"2026-08-07T10:05:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=9295"},"modified":"2026-08-07T10:05:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T10:05:34","slug":"you-cant-challenge-someone-elses-appeal-after-skipping-your-own-says-rajasthan-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/you-cant-challenge-someone-elses-appeal-after-skipping-your-own-says-rajasthan-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"You Can’t Challenge Someone Else’s Appeal After Skipping Your Own, says Rajasthan HC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jodhpur:<\/strong> The Rajasthan High Court has held that a person who does not challenge a trial court’s order through the appeal provided under law cannot later question the outcome of another party’s appeal by filing a writ petition. The Court dismissed a plea arising from a dispute over land claimed to be a public road.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case began when Surendra Kumar Sethia filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a piece of land on the basis of a valid patta. He alleged that the State Government was planning to construct a road over his land and sought an injunction to prevent any interference with his possession. During the proceedings, Ayub Sodha was added as a defendant after he claimed that the land was actually part of a public road and that blocking it would inconvenience to public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial court initially refused to grant interim relief. However, the appellate court found that Sethia had a strong prima facie case and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. After rehearing the parties, the trial court directed both sides to maintain status quo over the disputed land until the suit was decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The State Government challenged the status quo order, but its appeal was eventually dismissed. Ayub Sodha, however, never filed his own appeal against the trial court’s order. Instead, he approached the High Court seeking to challenge both the trial court’s order and the appellate court’s decision in the State Government’s appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Farjand Ali held that Ayub Sodha had an independent statutory remedy to challenge the trial court’s order but chose not to use it. Rather the appeal before the appellate court had been filed only by the State Government. Since the petitioner had not challenged the original order himself, he could not later question the outcome of proceedings initiated by another party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court further observed that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory appellate mechanism and invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution after allowing the prescribed period for filing an appeal to lapse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court again reiterated that the High Court cannot be used as an alternative to a regular appeal. It can interfere only in exceptional cases where there is a serious legal or jurisdictional error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finding no such exceptional circumstances, the Court dismissed the writ petition.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a person who does not challenge a trial court’s order through the appeal provided under law cannot later question the outcome of another party’s appeal by filing a writ petition. The Court dismissed a plea arising from a dispute over land claimed to be a public road. … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9297,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[1767,1860,1857,1768,1600,561,1858,198,971,1695,48,1862,1863,43,278,1861,1859,951,1160],"class_list":["post-9295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court","tag-appellate-court","tag-article-227","tag-articles-226","tag-civil-procedure","tag-civil-suit","tag-high-court-judgment","tag-injunction","tag-judicial-review","tag-justice-farjand-ali","tag-land-dispute","tag-legal-news","tag-legal-remedy","tag-public-road","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-rajasthan-judiciary","tag-status-quo-order","tag-statutory-appeal","tag-trial-court","tag-writ-petition"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9295"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9295\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9298,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9295\/revisions\/9298"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9297"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}