( 1 ) A short and straightforward question that arises for consideration in this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the learned District Judge, Tikamgarh in M. C. C. No. 3/2005 has committed any kind of illegality and infirmity by rejecting the prayer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the CPC') on the groupd that the application filed by the petitioner ,was not supported by an affidavit and the respondent had filed the affidavit in suppprt of his stance and further the grounds men tioned in the application of transfer are founded on figment of imagination of the defendants.

( 2 ) THE factual scenario that has been depicted in the petition is that the non-applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 3a/79 against the petitioner for eviction from the suit premises and the said suit was decreed on 17-11-1981 and in pursuance of the said decree possession of the said suit shop was taken over by them, It is contended that the possession was taken over by the non-applicants by force which led the petitioner to file an application under Order 21 and Rules 99 and 100 read with Section 151 of the cpc claiming recovery of possession of the suit shop and also for compensation of Rs. 100/- per day. The respondents controverted the assertions. It is urged that the said proceeding is pending before the learned trial judge for several years and the respondents chose not to adduce evidence in the case. On 10-1-2005 the respondents stated before the Court that they did not intend to adduce any evidence and by such statement the evidence of the respondents was closed and the case was fixed for argument on 21 -8-2005 It is contended that the case has been adjourned from time to time at the instance of the respondents as they had the intention to procrastinate the proceedings. In this obtaining factual matrix the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the cpc before the learned District Judge, tikamgarh stating that the case pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Tikamgarh should be transferred to another competent court at Tikamgarh as he had reasonable apprehension that he cannot get justice from the said Court. It was mentioned in the petition that the case was being lingered and the petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC which was fixed on 17-2-2003 but the same was not entertained and the case was fixed for final argument. It was also stated that the petitioner made a prayer on 21 -2-2005 that he had engaged Mr. C. D. Mishra, Advocate, from Jabalpur to argue the case and his vakalatnama had been filed. A prayer was made to adjourn the case to first week of march, 2005 so that the advocate so engaged could come from Jabalpur to argue the matter. The said prayer was also turned down without any justification and the petitioner was directed to argue the case.

( 3 ) IT was the further stand in the application that the respondent No. 1, Deep chand Jain, has very close relations with the Presiding Officer and visits his house frequently and, therefore, he has no faith in the Court and feels he would not get justice. The learned District Judge by the impugned order observed that the application filed under Section 24 of the CPC was not supported by an affidavit; that the respondent had filed an affidavit; that the petitioner was trying to linger the proceedings; and that the allegations were not founded on any kind of particularity and accordingly declined to entertain the prayer.

( 4 ) WHEN the matter was listed on the first day it was thought seemly to have the assistance of an amicus curiae and accordingly appointed Mr. M. L. Jaiswal, learned senior Counsel as amicus curiae to assist the Court.

( 5 ) I have heard Mr. R. K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. L. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel as amicus curiae.

( 6 ) QUESTIONING the pregnability of the order it is submitted by Mr. Samaiya that the learned Distri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document