Devi Prasad Upadhyay v. Ajiz Muskaan Construction And ANR.

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Art. 227) N0.

e>^?> OF 2014 PETITIONER (Plaintiff) ^A?€^..

\»"~ ./•-:-^^^'

A»i .^f ^.^-•~ .»&• Devi Prasad Upadhyay, son of ^tate H.N.

Upadhyay, aged years, resident of MIG-353, Jamnipali, Darri Korba, District Korba (CG) Civil & Revenue District Korba.

Vs RESPONDENTS (Defendants) 1.

Ajiz Muskaan Construction (wrongly mentioned as "Ajit"

in the order impugned), through its Director .Mirza Tarik Beig (wrongly mentioned as "Mircha" in the order impugned), EG-9, Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Dist. Bilaspur (CG)

2. Mirza Tarik Beig (wrongly mentioned as "Mircha" in the order impugned), son of Mirza Aziz Beig, EG-9, Rajiv Plaza, .Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Dist. Bilaspur (CG).

WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE 2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF fNDIA ~s IRJ)

^ ^ w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.f227)No.948of2014 Devi Prasad Upadhyay PETITIQNER

Versus

Ajiz Muskaan Construction & another RESPONDENTS W.P.f227^No.949of2014 Manik Rao Bade PETITIONER

Versus

RESPONDENTS Ajiz Muskaan Cpnstruction & another W.Rf227)No.950of2014 Smt. Kunda Bade PETIT'IONER

Versus

Ajiz Muskaan Construction & another RESPONDENTS And W.Rf227yNo.951 of 2014 Sainit Bhawsaar PETITIONER

Versus

RESPONDENTS Ajiz Muskaan Construction & another Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant KumarMishra Present:- Shri Vivek Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER '

(Passed on this 5th Day ofJanuary, 2015) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1.

These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred to challenge the order passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, dismissing petitioners' applications under Section 24 CPC for transfer of "^

o V...

Civil Suit from the Court of Seventh Additional District Judge, Bilaspur to any other Court of competent jurisdiction.

The subject applications under Section 24 CPC were filed on the ground that the Presiding Officer is in the habit of stating to the plaintiffs counsel even before an interim application is taken up for consideration, that application deserves to be dismissed. He also uses mobile phone on the dais and has granted opportunity to the defendant to file his written statement even after expiry of six months period. While dismissing the applications, the District Judge has mentioned that *< the suit was posted before the concerned Presiding Judge for the first time on 18-6-2014. Itwasthereafterposted on 11-7-2014, 14-7-2014, 23-7-2Q14^and 24-7-2014. On all the dates interim applications were considered and defendant was granted time to filewrittenstat&ment.

On 30-7-2014, the defendant's counsel submitted written statement without containing the signature of the defendant, however, instead of returning the written statement the Presiding Officer kept it in the record. It is said that the written statement was signed by the Advocate but the defendant could not sign over it because he was out of station. Merely because the written statement has been taken on record for which there was an order by the Court, it cannot be said that the concerned Presiding Officer is prejudiced against the plaintiff. No order on merits has been passed by the Presiding Officer which can be said to be such an absurd order which shocks the judidal conscience of the Court and compels it to draw an inferenoe that the Presiding Officer is hell bent on passing an order against the plaintiff.

In the opinion of this Court, learned District Judge has not committed any error of jurisdiction while rejecting the petitioners' applications under Section 24 CPC.

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. ,\vta ASHU .^^ Yt»^aftt>e ss