Ramji Prasad Singh v. Prabha Devi Alias Kaushilya Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.282 of 2021 ====================================================== Ramji Prasad Singh son of Garabhu Mahto @ Garbhu Singh resident of Village Saydanpur, Post Office and Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Prabha Devi alias Kaushilya Devi wife of Jagdish Prasad resident of Village Saydanpur, Post Office and Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. 2.

Sanjeev Kumar son of late Jagdish Prasad resident of Village Saidanpur, Post Office and Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. 3.

Sunita Sinha Daughter of late Jagdish Prasad resident of Village Saidanpur, Post Office and Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. 4.

Sujata Kumari Daughter of late Jagdish Prasad resident of Village Saidanpur, Post Office and Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. 5.

Archana Kumari Daughter of Late Jagdish Prasad resident of Village Saidanpur, Post Office and Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. 6.

Sunaina Kumari Daughter of Late Jagdish Prasad resident of Village Saidanpur, Post Office and Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Kumar Sinha 2 For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ravi Shanker Pankaj ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-11-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing.

Vide impugned order dated 04.11.2020, the learned District judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif has transferred Title Appeal No. 41 of 2007 to the court of A.D.J.-I, Hilsa from the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.282 of 2021(2) dt.26-11-2021 2/2 court of Additional District judge-I, Nalanda at Biharsharif. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before transferring the case, no opportunity of being heard was provided to him.

The learned District judge has mentioned the reason for transferring the case in the impugned order itself. The reason was that the court of Additional District judge-I, Biharsharif was vacant and the case was lying in a vacant court. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not clarify as to why he wanted to oppose the transfer order and as to why he is aggrieved by that order. The order of the learned District judge is well-reasoned and need not any interference.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U