Writ Petition No. 5378 of 2012. Case: Ramesh Raghunath Komatwar Vs Jubedabegum Abdul Kadar Kaz. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Writ Petition No. 5378 of 2012
Party Name:Ramesh Raghunath Komatwar Vs Jubedabegum Abdul Kadar Kaz
Counsel:For Petitioner: K. K. Kulkarni, Adv. and For Respondents: S. S. Thombre, Adv.
Judges:S. S. Shinde, J.
Issue:Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - Section 24
Citation:AIR 2013 Bom 142
Judgement Date:April 15, 2013
Court:Bombay High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

  1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the parties.

  2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 06.03.2013, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed, in Misc. Civil Application No. 255 of 2011.

  3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that defendant filed application for transfer of the Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of 2011 from the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur to the Courts of Civil Judge Junior Division, Majalgaon and or Civil Judge Senior Division, Majalgaon.

  4. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that there was no affidavit, supporting the allegations made in the application filed by the original defendant. He invited my attention to the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sudarshan Jain v. Deep Chand Jain and others, reported in AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 6 and submitted that the application for transfer of the case on mere allegations of bias against the Presiding Officer, without being supported by affidavit cannot be filed.

  5. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners invited my attention to the paragraph No. 7 of the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the Principal District Judge, Beed has neither assigned a single reason nor expressed prima facie satisfaction about the allegations in the application for transfer of the suit from the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur to the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Majalgaon for hearing and disposal according to law.

  6. The learned counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari and others, reported in 2009 (3) Mh LJ 77: (AIR 2008 SC 2987) and Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, reported in 2008 (5) Mh LJ 1: (AIR 2008 SC 1333) and submitted that the Principal District Judge ought to have expressed what reasons weighed with him for transfer of the Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of 2011 from the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Dharur to the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Majalgaon for hearing and disposal according to law. Therefore, he submits that impugned judgment and order deserves to set aside.

    6A. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for original defendant/respondent herein invited my attention to the provisions of Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (Hereinafter...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL