Importance of following the prescribed procedure under Rule 89-A of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 when a case is transferred from one court to another, and the principle that every party should be granted an opportunity of hearing and that cases should not be decided on mere technicalities.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following relief, among other:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.01.2010 passed by 4th Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar and the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Haridwar.”

2. Plaintiff-Ratni Devi filed a civil suit against Smt. Aruna Modi and petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar for permanent prohibitory injunction. Copy of the ordersheet of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) 1st, Haridwar has been enclosed by the petitioners as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It starts with the date 15.04.2009, on which the presiding officer was on leave. 08.05.2009 was fixed by the link officer. On 08.05.2009, learned counsel for the plaintiff appeared, but the defendant did not. 22.05.2009 was fixed. On 22.05.2009, learned counsel for the plaintiff appeared, but none appeared for the defendant. It was, therefore, directed that the suit shall proceed ex-parte against the defendants no.2, 3 & 4. 17.07.2009 was fixed for plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence. On 17.07.2009, the plaintiff did not appear and, therefore, the hearing of the suit was adjourned to 17.08.2009 for plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence. On 17.08.2009, nobody turned up for the plaintiff and, therefore, the hearing of the suit was adjourned to 18.09.2009 (for ex-parte evidence). Vide order dated 03.09.2009, the suit was transferred to the court of 4th Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) for disposal according to law. On the selfsame day, the file was received by the transferee court. On 18.09.2009, learned counsel for the plaintiff appeared and he made an endorsement on the margin of the ordersheet to this effect ‘none appeared for the defendants.”

3. On the next date, i.e., 05.10.2009 the plaintiff again moved an application for adjournment, which was allowed. On 05.11.2009, the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded (in the absence of defendant). On 12.11.2009, the lawyers abstained from court work. The ordersheet of 17.11.2009 indicates that the plaintiff’s evidence could not be recorded, as no time was left. On 24.11.2009, the plaintiff made a statement that he has not to adduce any other evidence. Consequently, 14.12.2009 was fixed for arguments. On 14.12.2009, the hearing of the case was adjourned on the request of the plaintiff. On 23.12.2009, the arguments could not take place, as no time was left with the Court. On 06.01.2010, the trial court heard the arguments of the plaintiff and, on 11.01.2010, an ex-parte decree was passed.

4. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants (petitioners herein) moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11.01.2010 primarily on the ground that when the file of original suit no.18/2003 was transferred from the court of 1st Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar to the court of 4th Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, no intimation was given to the defendants. The Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (and as a consequence thereof, application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was also dismissed).

5. The order of the trial court was assailed before the District Judge, who, in turn, transferred the case to the 1st Addl. District Judge, Haridwar. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal.

6. Aggrieved against the same, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

7. Learned trial court in its judgment dated 28.05.2012 admitted that the file of the aforesaid original suit was continued to be transferred from one court to another. Learned trial court observed that the counsel for the defendants appeared in different courts and they have made an endorsement to this effect in the ordersheet, which observation is contrary to the fac