Gh.Qadir vs Ab.Salam Baba

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The order impugned is said to have been passed by District Judge, Srinagar, where under application for transfer of proceedings pending in the

court of Sub Registrar, Srinagar titled Abdul Salam Baba versus gulam Qadir was dismissed. The transfer application was moved on the count that

the trial court had ordered recording of statement of parties before framing of issues in a suit for ejectment. This order was passed on 2631994

and it was projected that on one or the other pretext the person of the petitioner before me was not making himself available for getting his

statement recorded and the court was constrained to pass coercive orders which created a doubt in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get

fair deal and moved the application for transfer.

The learned District Judge instead of looking to the grievance of the petitioner, however, dismissed the application for transfer and passed

certain more directions, where under he had directed the SubRegistrar, Srinagar to frame issues instead of recording statement of the parties.

It may be noted that in a suit for ejectment, the tenant/defendant is always trying to protract the proceedings, of which court can take a judicial

notice. He always wants to make support by straw in the drowning river just to see that the proceedings are protracted. Otherwise, this trifling

issue as to whether statement was to be recorded before framing of issues had given a long lease of life to the petitioner to protract the case, from

1995 till date by filing the present revision. I am told that in the meantime, issues have already been framed and even some evidence has been

recorded in exparte. The petitioner now wants to set at naught the process which has been taken in the suit during the pendency of the revision

petition having been filed before this court. Admittedly when the revision was filed, records were called for. Till date no order of stay of the

proceedings was issued and neither filing of a revision ipsofacto will mean or be deemed to operate as stay in the proceedings. So every earnest

effort is being made by the petitioner/tenant to see all the loopholes and protract the matter on one or the other pretext.

I have perused the order of learned District Judge. Merely giving directions by the learned District Judge to the trial court, asking him to proceed

in the matter ahead by framing issues, learned District Judge has not in any way transgressed his jurisdiction and the order passed is not in any way

in exercise of jurisdiction not vested in him. The order passed by the learned District Judge asking the trial court to frame issues in the matter and to

proceed further in the proceedings is not one coming within the mischief of jurisdictional or procedural error having been committed by the learned

District Judge, which calls for an interference by the revisional court. So the revision petition is misconceived.

For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is dismissed with the direction that records be sent back to the trial court immediately and the

trial court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

Before parting with the file, it may also be noted that the Presiding Officer of the court of Sub Registrar has since long been transferred. So there

will be no grievance about the trial of the case by the present Presiding Officer.