Back
JITENDRA KUMAR
Executive Engineer Civil, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corp. of India – Appellant
Versus
B. Prasad and Co. , Govt. Registered Contractor, Anisabad, Harnichak P&T Colony, Patna – Respondent
ORDER
The present Civil Miscellaneous No. 406 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 17.08.2021, passed by Ld. District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous Case No. 36 of 2021, whereby Ld. District Judge, Patna had transferred the Miscellaneous Case No. 36 of 2021 to the court of Ld. ADJ-X, Patna for hearing and disposal, ignoring the submission of Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the said miscellaneous case before the Ld. District Judge is not maintainable. As such, by not dismissing the miscellaneous case, Ld. District Judge impliedly upheld the admission of the case before himself and transferred it to the Court of Ld. ADJPatna X, Patna for further proceeding.
2. The relevant factual matrix of the case is that Miscellaneous Case No. 18 of 2014 was filed by the Respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the arbitral award dated 10.05.2014, in the Court of Ld. Sub-Judge-1, Patna. However, later on, the same was transferred to the Court of Ld. District Judge, Patna, where it was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 2017 on 05.06.2017 and thereafter the same was
Order passed under Rule 13 of Order 9 of CPC rejecting application for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte, appeal would lie under Order XLIII Rule 1 (d) of CPC.
The mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court had the requisite jurisdiction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
