AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjuli Palo, J
By the impugned order dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) learned Principal District Judge has rejected the application under Section 24 of the Code of
Civil Procedure filed by the applicant for transferring Civil Suit No.174-A/2015 to the Court of some another Presiding Officer.
The main contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that without affording an opportunity to the applicants/defendants to file reply, the Presiding
Officer has passed an interim order on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Suffice it to say, vide order dated 09.11.2021 directed the matter to be listed on 12.11.2021 and till then the defendants were restrained from selling the disputed land to any third party. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is still pending before the trial Court and the same is to be decided after filing of the reply by the defendants.
In the considered opinion of this Court, by passing the aforesaid order no bias is shown by the Presiding Officer or the applicants have not established that any prejudice is caused to them by such an order. In fact, the order passed by the trial Court is in consonance with the enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488, to avoid multiplicity of litigations. If the applicants are aggrieved with the said order, they may take recourse to such legal remedies as may be available to them in
accordance with law.
Therefore, there is no irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Principal District Judge, Jabalpur rejecting the application under
Section 24 of the C.P.C.
In view of the above, the civil revision, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed in limine.