Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAMA versus CIVIL JUDGE (JD), IST CLASS, J

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SHYAMA v CIVIL JUDGE (JD), IST CLASS, J - CW Case No. 4449 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 3863 (9 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4449/2007

SHYAMA

Vs.

CIVIL JUDGE (JD), FIRST CLASS, JAIPUR DISTRICT,

JAIPUR & ORS.

DATE: 09.08.2007.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE

Mr. D.P. Sharma for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Sharma for the respondents.

****

The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for temporary injunction which is pending before the Civil

Judge (Jr. Division) First Class, Jaipur District,

Jaipur. The case of the petitioner is that he donated 0.03 hectare of land for construction of primary school in Lodha-Ki-Dhani, Chonp. During pendency of the suit for temporary injunction, the petitioner filed application for appointment of commissioner to submit the factual report as the dispute arose when the

Government set apart the land for construction of the primary school.

The petitioner submits that this land is situated near pond (Talai) and is not suitable for construction of school building.

On the contrary, Head Master of the school has also reported the B.D.O, Panchayat Samiti, Amber that a gas pipeline is lying in the land surrendered by the petitioner, therefore, this land is not suitable for construction of school building.

The petitioner prayed that to verify the fact that which land is suitable, commissioner is required to be appointed and as per the report the Court can only arrive at a conclusion.

I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and have also gone through the order impugned dated 01.06.2007 passed by the Civil Judge

(JD) & Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jaipur District,

Jaipur, by which the application moved on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner to appoint a commissioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner wants to create evidence in his favour.

Even otherwise also, the petitioner and the respondents placed a letter written by the Head Master of the school for perusal of the Court. The petitioner can also adduce evidence before the trial Court to establish the fact that which land is more appropriate to construct the primary school, but in any case, I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the order impugned dated 01.06.2007 passed by the Court below by which the application of the petitioner for appointment of commissioner has been rejected. No interference whatsoever is required by this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


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.