High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 04 RAJ CK 0115

Hanuman S/o Raghunath vs Shrikishan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 26 April 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
435 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

41 paragraphs · 335 words

In D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.224/2017:

For the reasons mentioned in the application, 76 days

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.

In D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.435/2017:

1.

The appellants were the private respondents in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.2531/2016.

2.

The private respondents herein were the petitioners.

Their grievance was to Civil Suit No.84/2015 seeking declaration

and permanent injunction against the appellants not being decided

expeditiously notwithstanding the appellants not appearing in the

suit.

3.

The prayer made in the writ petition was to direct the

Sub Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur to

expeditiously decide the suit.

4.

When the writ petition came up for hearing on October

19, 2016, it was informed to the learned Single Judge that the suit

had already been transferred by an order passed by the Collector

to the A.C.M.-cum-Executive Magistrate, Fast Track, Amer, District

Jaipur. Thus, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge vide

order dated October 19, 2016 is to the said officer to expeditiously

decide the suit within four months.

5.

The appellants filed S.B. Civil Misc. Application

No.459/2016 before the learned Single Judge pointing out that the

direction issued to the A.C.M.-cum-Executive Magistrate, Fast

Track, Amer, District Jaipur was incorrect because the suit was

filed in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh,

District Jaipur. Dismissing the application vide impugned order

dated January 25, 2017 the learned Single Judge has held that the

direction was rightly issued on account of the Collector having

transferred the suit.

6.

The appellants have not challenged the order passed by

the Collector transferring the suit.

7.

The appellants cannot have a grievance to the direction

issued by the learned Single Judge for the suit to be decided

expeditiously. It is the right of every litigant to have a suit decided

expeditiously.

8.

Not having challenged the order by the Collector

transferring the suit, the appellants cannot make a grievance to

the suit being transferred.

9.

The writ-appeal is dismissed.

10.

No costs.