AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 219 wordsDinesh Mehta, J
The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that on 28.03.2016 an interim order was passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in a revision petition (No.2500/2016) filed by the respondent Jannat (petitioner herein).
It is stated by Mr. Madhan that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has moved an application seeking vacation of the aforesaid order immediately on the next date i.e. 26.04.2016, neither the revision petition has been decided nor the application for vacation of the aforesaid order has been taken into consideration.
Mr. Nishank Madhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed for perusal of the Court certified copies of the order-sheets of the above referred revision petition to substantiate his assertion.
Having perused the proceedings of the Board of Revenue, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file an application seeking early disposal of the stay vacation application along with certified copy of the order instant.
In case, such application is filed, the learned Member of the Board shall decide petitioner's application for vacation of the order, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks of receiving the application.
Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.