PANKAJ MITHAL
ISHTIYAK AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
MEENA – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.