TAJUNNISA BEGUM Vs. MYDAR HULIGEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not necessary to entertain this writ petition, as the disposal of this petition at this stage itself with certain observations serves the purpose.

(2.) Sri K.S. Savanur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that a transfer petition (Misc. Petition No. 23 of 1983, filed on 23.6.1983) filed before the learned District Judge, Raichur, under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, for transfer of O.S.No. 91 of 1980 from the Court of the Civil-Judge, Raichur, to the Court of the Civil Judge, Koppal, is still pending and due to interim order passed therein, the petitioners are put to great loss and inconvenience.

(3.) It is sufficient to observe that a transfer petition, whether it be on the ground of convenience or on other grounds, is required to be disposed of immediately after the respondent or respondents to the petition are served. Long pendency of such a petition is bound to cause great inconvenience to the parties. As long as transfer-petition is pending, further progress in the suit is held up. Therefore, some times it becomes a convenient mode for the parties who want to avoid early decision in the suit or the proceeding to procrastinate the suit or the proceeding. Therefore, the Court must endeavour to dispose of every such case at the earliest. "If the petition is based on the allegations made against the Presiding Officer, it is all the more necessary that the same should be disposed of with Top priority', as the pendency of it affects the prestige and position of the Presiding Officer of the Court; consequently, the image of the Judiciary. Such a situation should not be allowed to continue."