KALPTARU LAND PVT LTD Vs. DISTRICT COURT SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner -original plaintiff challenging the office order No.368 of 2013 dated 18.4.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Surat under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'). The prayer sought for by the petitioner is as under : -

(2.) SPECIAL Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 was filed by Syed Rashidakhatun against heirs of deceased Vishnubhai Ambalal and Ors. including petitioner who is defendant No. 8 therein. Special Civil Suit No.143 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner against the plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 388 of 2006 and ors. In Appeal from Order No.86 of 2007 and Appeal from Order No.375 of 2007 arising out of order below Exh.5 of the above suits was decided by this Court on 12.3.2008 wherein the trial Court was directed to hear, decide and conclude both the above suits on or before 31.12.2008. Issues were framed and evidence of petitioner -plaintiff was closed in Special Civil Suit No. 143 of 2007. The amendment application filed below Exh. 241 by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.388 of 2006 was rejected by the trial Court against which Special Civil Application No.1871 of 2013 has been filed by the plaintiff is pending in the High Court. The respondent passed an impugned order under Section 24 of the Code, transferring the petitioner -plaintiff's suit along with the other two suits to the Court of 15th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat at the stage when the evidence of defendants were completed and the Special Civil Suit No.143 of 2007 was at the final stage of arguments and only evidence of defendant No.7 is pending. Hence this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr.P.C.Kavina appearing with Mr.B.A.Vaishnav, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Principal District Judge has passed the impugned order without any sufficient and cogent reasons under the guise of public administration resulting into grave injustice to the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner was not heard before the order was passed. He has submitted that even after the impugned order was passed, the petitioner has applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 20.4.2013 and the petitioner was asked to approach on 22.4.2013. However, on 22.4.2013, the petitioner was informed that the respondent i.e. the Principal District Judge, Surat has instructed not to give the certified copy of the impugned order. Learned senior Advocate for the petitioner has then submitted that under Section 24 of the Code, transferring the suits from one Court to another is an exception and not a general rule. Suits can be transferred in rare case of contingencies only and thus the respondent should have exercised the said power with utmost care, caution and with total application of judicial mind. He has submitted that there is neither any application made by any party for such transfer of case nor is there any administrative contingency for which such an order was required to be passed by the respondent in such a high handed fashion. He has further submitted that defendant No.7 in Special Civil Suit No.143 of 2007 and plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.388 of 2006 had not produced any original documentary evidence in spite of 7 years of pending trial and therefore, it is obvious to note from the conduct of the defendant that the defendant wants to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that though many other connected Civil Suits which were pending in the same Court but the respondent has chosen to transfer Regular Civil Suit No.143 of 2007 and Special Civil Suit No.388 of 2006 by clubbing three suits and the logic behind this act is suspicious because the impugned order is as such silent on the said aspect that which public administration has prompted learned Principal District Judge to transfer the suits without disclosing the said fact in the impugned order. Therefore, learned senior Advocate has reiterated that when the suit has almost reached final stage of arguments, then the action of transfer of said suits without disclosing any sufficient reason is illegal and the reasons for such transfer need to be investigated or at least disclosed in the interest of justice. It is pertinent to note that the suits have been transferred from senior Judger to a junior Judge which is very unusual. Thus, it is contended by learned senior Advocate that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.