Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


SMT.JAI SHREE VERMA v SHASHIKANT - CMAP Case No. 02817 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 1311 (26 May 2006)

S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.2817/2006 DR(J)


S.B. Civil Transfer Petition No.34/2005

Date : 26.5.2006


Mr. Vineet Jain, for the applicant.


Heard learned counsel for the applicant on application for recalling of order dated 10.4.2006 passed by this Court

(by me) ordering transfer of the petition filed by the applicant in the Court of District Judge, Sikar to District

Court, Churu for deciding in accordance with law.

The applicant/respondent filed petition under Guardian and Wards Act for which the non-application/petitioner submitted transfer petition no.34/2005 before this Court.

According to learned counsel for the applicant, power was filed by him on behalf of the applicant in the said transfer petition on 7.4.2006 but that was not placed on record of the transfer petition and, therefore, transfer petition was decided without knowledge of the applicant or his counsel, therefore, the order dated 10.4.2006 may be recalled.

The applicant submitted a detailed affidavit to demonstrate that there was no reason for transfer of the case and in fact, the transfer petition was filed by suppressing the relevant material facts. It is submitted in the affidavit that the evidence of the applicant has already been completed and now the case is fixed for evidence of the non-applicant.

In view of the above fact, no useful purpose will be served by recalling the order which could not be recalled on the ground of non-affording of opportunity of hearing because of the reason that since case is ripe one and the applicant is not likely to suffer any hardship if the order is not recalled and the case is tried in the Court at Churu because of the reason that now the case is fixed for evidence of the non-applicant.

In view of the above, I do not find any reason to recall the order. Consequently, this application is dismissed.

However, office is directed to be careful in placing power of advocates in file promptly.




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


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 |

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