The trial court's actions must not indicate any illegality or error of jurisdiction to warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Fakhruddin, J.

Petitioner in person.

Shri P.D. Bidua, Counsel who is present is given notice.

1. Heard.

Record perused.

The order passed by the District Judge, Gwalior dated 10-12-1998 is also perused.

2. Petitioner contended that the court-below is proceeding in the matter hurriedly and the application filed by him has been rejected. His contention is that he would not get fair trial, as according to him, most of the applications filed by him have been rejected without any reason.

3. This contention has no force. The applicant had filed an application for amendment on 1-2-1999, which was allowed by the court-below and the non-applicant against that preferred a revision, which has been dealt with separately. It is therefore not correct that all the applications have been rejected.

4. A perusal of the record further shows that the matter is pending since quite a long. The orders passed by the court-below against which revisions were preferred before this Court are detailed orders and the High Court while dealing with the matter directed for expeditious disposal of the matter vide order dated 20-8-1996, passed in Civil Revision No. 179 of 1996. Civil Revision No. 609/98 preferred by the applicant against the rejection of the applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 under Order 13 Rule 10 and under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was also disposed of on 7-10-1998 and this Court held that the applications were rightly decided by the court- below and it was further directed that no adjournment will be granted to the parties and the matter will be decided expeditiously. Pursuant to the said directions, the court-below is proceeding in the matter.

5. As regards comments made the learned District Judge had called for the report from the concerning Presiding Judge, who submitted his report on 5-11-1998 submitting that he has no personal interest in the matter and the efforts are being made to decide the matter in compliance of the directions of this Court. The District Judge has dealt the matter in great detail and this Court also has gone through record minutely. The Judge has no personal or pecuniary interest in the matter and any court wherever this case is transferred has to decide it early and there should be no apprehension. The Superior courts or the High Courts considering the facts and circumstances, direct early hearing and some times even the time-limit is fixed. The courts subordinate thereto especially the trial Court have to comply with the directions and in complying with the direction, short dates are necessarily required to be given. Such procedure is necessarily to be adopted and this should not be construed by any of the parties that the court has somehow or other interest in the matter. The trial Court becomes duty bound to dispose of the matters and accordingly acts as such. The apprehension therefore under the facts and circumstances is wholly misconceived. All parties and counsel should co-operate before trial Court and should do nothing to harm the institution.

6. Therefore, taking overall the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned District Judge does not suffer from any illegality nor there is any error of jurisdiction, warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Consequently, the revision fails and is dismissed.

The record of the case be sent back to the court-below along with copy of this order.