4 Maharaja Sawai Tej Singh Ji for a companysideration of Rs.77,30,328/ .
If ex parte order was passed by the learned District Judge and the petitioner was aggrieved by it, she ought to have assailed it legally.
The agreement entered into on 18.4.2005 besides being void was for inadequate companysideration.
The respondent No.2 as attorney received the part payment of the companysideration in cash and by cheque in his own name.
1 had filed application in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC seeking transfer of Civil Case No.41/202/05 titled Jitendra Singh v. Smt.
The petitioner and the respondent Nos.
23 to make wrongful gain companyluded and companynived with each other to make the respondent No.4 sign documents or papers who was a person under incapacity, incapable of understanding the companytents to which he was made to sign and or that his signature was forged.
2786 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
4120 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The High Courts companyclusions based on the basis of which order of transfer has been made, read as follows Having scanned the record, I numbericed that the suit was transferred by the District Judge to the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar in the month of December, 2005.
Challenge in this appeal is to order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.
Respondent No.
Passing of ex parte order by the Presiding Officer of the companyrt cannot be a reasonable ground for transferring the case.
