Babita Singh and another vs D. Neeraja Patnaik

D.N. Patel, J.—Having heard learned Counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:

(i) It appears that the present petitioners are original defendants in an Eviction Suit bearing Eviction Suit No. 23 of 2006 and appellants before the Lower Appellate Court in an Eviction appeal bearing Eviction Appeal No. 15 of 2008.

(ii) It appears that the respondent-plaintiff had filed Eviction Suit No. 23 of 2006, which has already been decreed and against that judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the present petitioners have preferred Eviction Appeal No. 15 of 2008, which is pending before 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur. In the said appeal, an application for transfer of the appeal was filed u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was numbered as Miscellaneous petition No. 25 of 2008. The said application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jamshedpur vide order dated 20th January, 2009 (Annexure-4 to the memo of the present petition). Against this rejection order for transfer of the appeal, the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(iii) It appears from the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC was filed by the present petitioners (original defendants-appellants) before 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Eviction Appeal No. 15 of 2008 for presentation of certain documents at appellate-stage. The said application was rejected by the lower Appellate Court and the presentation of the documents was not allowed at the appellate stage and, therefore, an application u/s 24 of CPC was filed for transfer of Eviction Appeal No. 15 of 2008 to another Court. This reason is no reason in the eyes of law. If the 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur has rejected the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC, the petitioners could have challenged the said order before the higher forum under Article 227 of Constitution of India, but, the petitioners have accepted that order, as it is, and subsequently they are preferring application for transfer of the matter and, therefore, rightly the same has been dismissed by the District Judge, Jamshedpur vide order dated 20th January, 2009 (Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition). The reasons given by the District Judge, Jamshedpur are absolutely true and correct and in consonance with the facts and law. No error has been committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the Miscellaneous petition No. 25 of 2008, preferred u/s 24 of CPC for transfer of the Eviction Appeal No. 15 of 2008 to another Court.

I see no reason to rake any deviation, from the conclusion, arrived at by the District Judge, Jamshedpur. There is no error in the impugned order much less, an error apparent on the face of record. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.