JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. -It is rather unusual and disturbing that the Court is required to deal with and dilate upon an application, seeking recusal of the Presiding Judge(s) of the Court from hearing the matter.

2. No sooner, had Ms. Prem Lata Parihar (applicant/respondent - present-in-person) began her submissions on the application eliciting exception by the Court concerned (Dinesh Mehta, J.) than, I posed a few questions to ascertain the possibility of conflict or bias at my end while hearing the matter, viz: Is she personally known to me? Or had she ever engaged me, as her counsel? Or had I ever remained opposite counsel in any of her litigation? Or is there any conflict of interest otherwise? Her answer was anobvious and emphatic 'No'.

3. With the given background, I set out to deal with the contentions raised by the applicant. However before doing so, it would be appropriate to reproduce the application filed by her, in extenso for better grasp of her purported grievance:-

"Application for exception of the judges who has practiced in Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur before becoming a judge at the same High Court and for honbe justice dinesh Mehta, R.C. jahala and for call file D.B SAW 261/9 And cmb 68/16 and cmb 215/12.

1. This civil misc appeal involves fraud committed by the respondents since 1997 and their advocate Mr. J. Gehlot and Justice Dinesh Mehta has practiced in the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur since 1992-93 around.

2. Mr. Jitendra Gehlot has also been practicing since 92 and advocate of the respondent who signed on consent order dated 15.05.1998.

3. The manner on dated 18.01.18 the stay granted to the Appellant by floating the mandatory statutory provisions under order 39 rule 3 CPC with out issuing Notice, giving me an opportunity to be heard, is violation of natural law and also on dated 15.02.18, the notice not served till today 10-4-18 the date but justice R.C. Jhala extended the stay without ordering under order 39 rule 3 under section 27, under order 5 rule 9, 9 (a), 12, 19(a), 20(a). They also violated D.B. order of Supreme Court dated 11.09.2000 in Zenith Metaplast P. Ltd. versus State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 200 SC 2114, AIR 2007 14, SCC 721 and Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission V/s , National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and others.

4. Prayer. So in the interest of justice , it is requested that the judges who has practiced at Jodhpur in Rajasthan High Court before becoming judge should not hear my case i. e. this appeal no. 183/18.

5. AIR 1996 SC 513 DB order Litigant having reasonable basis to expect that practitioner judge should not hear his matter. The judge should rescue himself from ensuring credibility and impartially of judiciary.

6. So please provide me suitable bench and call the SAW 261/09 and CMB 68/16 215/12 from ADJ no.3, Jodhpur."

# The application has been reproduced as it was; leaving the grammatical & other errors, as they were.

4. The applicant, arguing her application submitted that I should abstain from hearing this case, as the counsel for the appellants Mr. J. Gehlot has been practicing in this Court, just as I was practicing, until my elevation as a Judge of this Court. She submitted that having practiced in the same Court, there was likelihood of me being biased in his favour. Such being the contention, she expressed her apprehension that all Hon'ble Judges, including me, who have been elevated from the Bar to the Bench practiced in this Court were prone to be influenced by the very presence of Mr. J. Gehlot, who happens to be personally involved in the dispute at hand, for which he has been arrayed as a party in another case, emanating from the dispute in question.

5. Apart from this, she contended that the interim order dated 18.01.2018 passed by this Court, without even issuing a notice to the respondent, shows that the Court had exercised its powers of granting stay, without properly understanding and going through the provisions of law. In t