1 5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3219/2009. Kumar Tejwani Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 17th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.P. Joshi ] Mr. Siddharth Joshi ], for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. This writ petition, as framed, could only be treated to be a premature petition and bereft of cause of action. The petitioner submits that there is going to be passed a compromise decree whereby the respondent No.4 Ratan Kumar Sanghi would be executing a sale document in his favour. Such compromise decree is yet to come into existence. The petitioner points out that he was informed by the office of the Sub-Registrar that even if a compromise decree is passed by the Court for the sum mentioned in the agreement for sale, registration of the document would be made only on the basis of the market value determined by DLC rates in terms of Rule 59-B of the Rajasthan Stamps Rules. Even such submissions could only be said to be 2 premature at the present stage because neither the document of sale has come into existence nor any such demand has been raised by the Sub-Registrar at present. Moreover, the petitioner has not even served a notice on the authorities concerned ventilating his grievances or stating the propositions sought to be advanced before this Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this writ petition could only be treated a premature petition and the same is rejected as such. It is, of course, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/