Roopa Ram vs State & Ors on 22 April, 2009

                                  1

 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2838/2009
 (Roopa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.)

Date of order ::           22nd April 2009

       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

None present for the petitioner

      Though nobody appeared for the petitioner in the first
round, the matter was passed over in the interest of justice.
The matter has now been called out in second round after
recess but nobody has yet chosen to appear for the petitioner.
Having regard to the circumstances, the record has been
examined.
      It is noticed that an application as moved by the
petitioner purportedly under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC seeking
impleadment in the pending appeal before the Board of
Revenue has been declined by the impugned order dated
11.03.2008 particularly with reference to the fact that the
petitioner allegedly purchased the suit property during the
pendency of the litigation; and with reference to the decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sanjay Verma
Vs. Manik Roy and others: AIR 2007 SC 1332 and           Sunil
Gupta Vs. Kiran Girhotra and others: (2007) 8 SCC 506. The
Board of Revenue has observed that a transferee pendente
lite is not to be impleaded a party and the application as
moved by the petitioner was required to be rejected.
      There appears no error or illegality in the order as
passed by the Board of Revenue and no case is made out for
interference in the writ jurisdiction.
      The writ petition stands rejected.
      2

     (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

MK