S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13207/2014. Case: Shrikant Purohit Vs Vinita Srivastava and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13207/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Satya Narayan Kumawat, Advocate and For Respondents: Amit Singh Shekhawat, Advocate |
| Judges | Alok Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 233 |
| Citation | 2015 (2) WLN 507 (Raj) |
| Judgement Date | February 20, 2015 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Alok Sharma, J.
-
This petition has been filed against the order dt. 03.11.2014, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter "the Board") dismissing the transfer application filed under Sec. 233 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act of 1955") qua a civil appeal being heard by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer Camp Dudu (hereinafter "RAA"). Mr. Satya Narayan Kumawat, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had themselves earlier filed an application for early hearing in the transfer petition stating that their appeal pending before the RAA, Ajmer Camp Dudu, transfer of which was sought by the petitioner before the Board, be transferred to another RAA. It is submitted that despite the agreement of the respondents as reflected in their application before the Board, the said transfer application has been dismissed by the Board. It is submitted that the civil misc. appeal at the instance of the respondents before the RAA, Ajmer Camp Dausa is deserving of transfer to another RAA in view of the collusion of the respondents with the Presiding Officer of the RAA, Ajmer Camp Dudu owing to which the petitioner as respondent in the said appeal has no hope of justice being rendered by the said RAA.
-
Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order dt. 03.11.2014 is a legal and valid order passed by the Board correctly holding that a case cannot be transferred from one Court to another on mere apprehension of a litigating party without any substantive evidence of wrong doing or bias of the Presiding Officer. Counsel submits that were it so, the very administration of justice would be stalled and litigants left free to seek transfer of cases on their mere whim and caprice and this would delay adjudications beyond control. As regard the application purportedly moved by the respondents before the Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial