Devi Prasad vs Girijesh Kumar

Shiv Charan Sharma, J.—Sri Sachittanand Pal, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the admission of the revision. Under challenge in this revision is the order dated 04.09.2008 passed by District Judge, Rai Bareli in Miscellaneous Case No. 163 of 2008, Devi Prasad v. Girijesh Kumar. By the impugned order, learned District Judge rejected the application of the revisionist moved u/s 24 C.P.C for transfer of R.S. No. 196 of 2008, Devi Prasad v. Girijesh.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that suit No. 196 of 2008 is pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D) Rai Bareli for permanent prohibitory injunction and application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C is also pending. As the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the court towards the revisionist was not impartial rather biased and tilting towards the opposite party, hence application u/s 24 C.P.C was moved before the District Judge. In the application it was alleged that applicant saw the opposite party coming out of the chamber of the Presiding Officer. Moreover, it was also averred in the application that the opposite party made declaration in the village that he has settled the matter with the Presiding Officer and the order will be passed in his favour. On knowing of this fact, applicant was convinced that justice will not be done to him and on this apprehension application was moved u/s 24 C.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist emphatically stated that the revisionist made allegation against the Presiding Officer of the court stating that as there is no hope of justice to the applicant from the court concerned, hence the case must be transferred to the other court and learned District Judge was unjustified in not considering all the facts properly. He also argued that in view of the judgment reported in Dasrath Prasad Singh and Another Vs. Baijnath Prasad Singh, revision is maintainable against the order passed u/s 24 C.P.C. Learned Counsel for the revisionist also cited one another judgment reported in 1989 (15) ALR Smt Aliya Begum v. Smt Ghausiya Khan and Ors. On the strength of these judgments, learned Counsel for the revisionist also argued that ex-parte injunction was granted by the trial court, hence it is sufficient ground for transfer of the case.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party opposed the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner. He stated that suit No. 196 of 2008 was instituted on 13.03.2008 and although objection filed against the same but application''s were moved for prolonging the matter and when the court tried to grill the applicant, then application u/s 24 C.P.C was moved with false and fabricated story.

I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. Firstly, it will be material to mention that no illegality has been committed in the order of the District Judge, Rae Bareli. If the District Judge is satisfied that no case is made out for transfer of the case then he is fully empowered to dismiss the application. Secondly, it appears that absurd allegations have been made against the Presiding Officer of the court with the purpose of character assassination and no person is permitted to make such absurd allegation against the judicial officer. This allegation is absurd on the face of it that the applicant saw the opposite party coming out of the chamber of the Presiding Officer. Whether opposite party informed the applicant regarding time of his visit to the chamber of the Presiding Officer otherwise for what he was present there to see the opposite party coming out of the chamber of the Presiding Officer. It is also alleged that opposite party made declaration in the village that he has settled with the Presiding Officer but whether it is expected from a man of ordinary prudence prior to getting the case decided in his favour to make such declaration in the village and, on the face of it, it is fully absurd and bald allegation have been against the Presiding Officer. It is also a fact that applicant is intentionally delaying the disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., hence, the Presiding Officer was justified in proceeding with the case according to law.

For the reasons mentioned above, there appears no justification to admit this revision for hearing and the same is liable to be dismissed summarily.

Revision is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. This amount shall be deposited before the court concerned, within a period of 15 days from today. In case revisionist fails to deposit the amount, then the court shall proceed to recover the amount according to the provisions of C.P.C. This amount shall be utilised for legal aid purposes.

Even after passing the order, learned Counsel for the revisionist continued to harp the same tune and stated that certain observations were made in the body of the judgment, are not correct. He also stated that the facts have not been considered and when this fact was brought to the notice of the court that the revision has been filed before this Court against the order of the District Judge even then adjournment was granted at the cost of Rs. 250/- and ex-parte injunction was granted. In my opinion, this conduct was justified on the part of Presiding Officer and the conduct of the Advocate is not justified.

Again learned Counsel for the revisionist created same scene in the court, hence the matter be referred to the Bar Council. But later on, advocate expressed sorry for his act, hence matter shall not be referred to Bar Council.