Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGANNATH & ORS versus BOARD OF REVENUE AJMER & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAGANNATH & ORS v BOARD OF REVENUE AJMER & ORS - CW Case No. 2990 of 2002 [2007] RD-RJ 2363 (1 May 2007)

CW 2990/02

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2990/02

Jagannath & Ors. Versus Board of Revenue & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER :: 01/05/2007

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

Mr. H.R. Kumawat for Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for petitioners

Miss Mumtaz for Mr. R.K. Mathur, for respondent

Mr. Arun Sharma, Dy.G.A.

***

Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing the order of the Assistant Collector dated 4th February, 2002 whereby his application filed for taking certain documents on record

U/O13 R.2 CPC has been rejected and the revision petition preferred against the said order u/s.230 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act was also rejected by the 17th

Board of Revenue vide order dated April, 2002.

It appears from the record that after filing of the suit, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed against which revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue which was allowed vide order dated 1st March, 2001 and the petitioner was permitted to lead evidence in support thereof. At a later stage, he again moved 26th application on November, 2001 for taking certain documents on record. Learned Assistant

Collector after taking into consideration the

CW 2990/02 material observed that this application has been filed to delay the proceedings. The xerox copies of the documents which the petitioner intends to place on record, have already been enclosed along with the suit and the revisional authority also after taking into consideration the material affirmed the said finding.

The suit was filed in 1993 and almost after more than 9 years, application was filed for taking certain documents on record, particularly, when xerox copies were already on record filed along with the suit itself. It appears application must have been filed to delay the proceedings. Even otherwise, if petitioner places reliance on the documents enclosed with the present application that can be referred to when he wants to lead his evidence.

Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI],J.

FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.


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.