HEMANT Vs. BHATTU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, originally the suit was filed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ratangarh because of the reason that the land in question was situated in Town Sri Doongargarh which was situated in District Churu and the Court having territorial jurisdiction over Sri Doongargarh was at Ratangarh. Because of re-organisation of the cities, Sri Doongargarh went into Bikaner District from Churu District.

(3.) The distance from Sri Doongargarh to Bikaner is almost equal as of Ratangarh. It is also submitted that one revision petition arising out of the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. was also transferred to Sessions Courts, Bikaner. According to the petitioner, the original case no.1/2000 which also should have been transferred to the Court at Bikaner has not been transferred. It is also submitted that the petitioner is resident of Bikaner and is in service at Bikaner and there is no reason for asking him to attend the Court at Ratangarh inspite of the fact that the property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Bikaner.