BABU SINGH Vs. RAJ BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated December 10, 2021 to a larger Bench and constitution thereof by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on administrative side, for consideration of the following questions, the matter has been placed before us :

(2.) It is a case in which the applicants filed an application under Sec. 24 of the CPC[Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] in the Court of District Judge, Unnao seeking transfer of Regular Suit No. 182 of 1996 (Babu Singh and others vs. Raj Bahadur Singh) from the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Safipur, District-Unnao to any other Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Unnao. The ground for seeking such transfer was that the husband of applicant no. 1/1, who is an Advocate, is pursuing their case and on each and every date he has to go to Tehsil Safipur, which is situated at a distance of more than 30 km from Unnao. Hence, it would be convenient for him to pursue the case, if the same is transferred to Unnao. When the application was rejected by the learned District Judge vide order dated September 20, 2021 on the ground that the property in question in the suit is situated in Safipur, District-Unnao, therefore, the case cannot transferred, being aggrieved, the applicants filed the present application under Sec. 24 CPC before this Court seeking the relief as sought for before the Court below.

(3.) In these cases, transfer of Regular Suit No. 2791 of 1996 (Babu Singh and others vs. Raj Bahadur Singh) and Regular Suit No. 367 of 2018 (Shivji Virajman Mandir through Shivnath Singh vs. Reena Singh and others) was sought respectively from the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Safipur, District-Unnao to any other Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Unnao has been sought, on the same ground as taken in seeking transfer of Regular Suit No. 182 of 1996, by filing applications under Sec. 24 CPC. These applications were rejected by the learned District Judge vide order dated September 20, 2021. However, setting aside of the order dated September 20, 2021 passed by the District Judge has not been sought in both these applications filed under Sec. 24 CPC before this Court.