SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(All) 1053

PANKAJ MITHAL
ISHTIYAK AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
MEENA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Manish Chandra Tiwari and Syed Ali Imam for the Petitioner; S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The petitioner is a tenant. He has been ordered to be evicted in proceedings for arrears of rent and eviction by the Small Causes Court. The revision of the petitioner against the said decree is pending but without any interim order or stay of his eviction.

2. In the above circumstances, the respondents landlords applied for execution wherein the petitioner moved an application that the proceedings be adjourned as his revision is pending. The Executing Court adjourned the proceedings but imposed cost of Rs. 1000/-, so the petitioner moved an application under Section 24 C.P.C. for the transfer of the execution proceedings to some other Court. The said application has been rejected by the District Judge by the impugned order dated 9.5.2016.

3. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is settled law that the order passed by the District Judge rejecting application for transfer filed under Section 24 C.P.C. is neither appealable nor revisable and at best is amenable to supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vi








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top