Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has sought the following relief: In the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that by issuing order dated 18th January, 2007 (Annexure -1), passed by the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be declared to be illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application moved by the Petitioners under Order 41, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure may kindly be allowed.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order dated 18th January, 2007, it is noticed that one transfer application came to be filed before the Board of Revenue imploring that the appeal No. 24/2001 pending before the District Collector, Jaipur be transferred from his court to some other court. The transfer application became infructuous as in the meantime, the District Collector, Jaipur got transferred. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner took me through the impugned order and canvassed that the observations made with regard to the disposal of an application pending under Order 41, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure may come in the way at the time when the appeal shall be adjudicated by appellate authority. Learned Counsel further canvassed that the Board of Revenue observed that before taking the documents on record, the appeal shall be first adjudicated. This observation shall not enable the appellate court to take the documents on record, causing injustice to the Petitioner and thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside .
(3.) IT is very pertinent to note that whatever the observations are found to have been made by the Board of Revenue, a clarification with regard to the same can be sought only from the concerned court, which passed the impugned order. No clarification can be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with regard to observation made by the Board of Revenue and the Petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction to seek any clarification with regard to an order not having been passed by this Court. No fundamental right or other legal right is found to have been infringed by the impugned order having been passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not found to be maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same deserves to be dismissed.;