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

15 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.