Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJESH KUMAR versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR,NAGAUR & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJESH KUMAR v DISTRICT COLLECTOR,NAGAUR & ORS. - CW Case No. 5298 of 2004 [2005] RD-RJ 1076 (25 May 2005)

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5298/2004

Rajesh Kumar. Vs. District Collector, Nagaur and others.

Date : 25.5.2005

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr. GR Punia, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy.GA, for the respondents

-----

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondents orally submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the important material fact from this Court that he has already filed a suit for getting appropriate relief with respect to the controversy which is the controversy in this writ petition.

According to learned counsel for the respondents, there are allegations that the petitioner interpolated Annex.6.

It is submitted that the shop in question was never allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner is taking help of a letter issued by the Additional District

Collector, Deedwana requesting the Executive Engineer,

P.W.D., Deedwana to assess the rent of the premises because the above premises was proposed for allotment to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the letter has been interpolated by changing the words from to be allotted to allotted i.e. "dee jani hay" to "dee jati hay".

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that no reply in writing has been filed by the respondents and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false one.

Be it as it may be. The fact remains is that learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the suit has been filed by the petitioner for this very dispute. In view of the above, the petitioner could have claimed all relief in the suit and has no right to bifurcate relief under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. Not only this, there is no reason for the petitioner to suppress this important material fact from this Court as nothing has been said in the writ petition about filing of the suit by the petitioner.

In view of the above fact of suppression of important material fact and seeking remedy before the civil court, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and hence, dismissed.

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.

S.Phophaliya


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.