Deva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/769487
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnApr-13-2000
Case NumberD.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1901 of 1993
JudgeRajesh Balia and; Yamin, JJ.
Reported in2000(2)WLN190
AppellantDeva Ram
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
Advocates:Mr. Purohit
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226--writ--maintainability--writ against order passed by board of revenue during pendency of suit on application for temporary injunction--dispute no more survived as the suit itself stood decided--writ petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition.;writ petition dismissed as withdrawn - rajesh balia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the earlier order on 22.4.1993 deciding the writ petition in the absence of the learned counsel for the parties has been recalled by a separate order in d.b. civil misc. application no. 197/99 and, therefore, the petition has once again become live to be heard on merit.3. it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that this writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the board of revenue during the pendency of suit on an application for temporary injunction. during the intervening period the suit itself has been decided and therefore the dispute about the interim order which is the subject matter of writ petition no more survives.4. in the aforesaid circumstances mr. purohit learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to his rights to persue remedy against the final order which has been made in proceedings before the revenue court in accordance with law.5. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to as prayed for. there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Rajesh Balia, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The earlier order on 22.4.1993 deciding the writ petition in the absence of the learned Counsel for the parties has been recalled by a separate order in D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 197/99 and, therefore, the petition has once again become live to be heard on merit.

3. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that this writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue during the pendency of suit on an application for temporary injunction. During the intervening period the suit itself has been decided and therefore the dispute about the interim order which is the subject matter of writ petition no more survives.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances Mr. Purohit learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to his rights to persue remedy against the final order which has been made in proceedings before the revenue court in accordance with law.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.