HARI SINGH Vs. SHYAM BIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This transfer application has been moved by the applicantappellant, who is the plaintiff of O.S. No. 290 of 2013, seeking transfer of Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2021, Smt. Reshma Devi and others vs. Shyam Bihari and others, arising from the said suit, pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 1, Firozabad to any other Court of competent jurisdiction within the same Judgeship.

(2.) The applicant, Hari Singh is one of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 290 of 2013, Fateh Singh and others vs. Shyam Bihari and others. The plaintiff moved a temporary injunction application in the said suit. It was rejected vide order dtd. 8/9/2021. It appears that a Miscellaneous Appeal, from the order refusing the temporary injunction, is pending before the Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 1, Firozabad, numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2021. It is the applicant's case that the defendants are threatening the applicant-plaintiff that they have colluded with the Presiding Officer in the Appellate Court, where Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2021 is pending, and on one occasion, the applicant has seen one of the defendants emerge from the chambers of the Presiding Officer. It is on the foot of this allegation alone that the applicant says that he has a reasonable apprehension that the case would be decided against him because the defendants have colluded with the Presiding Officer. The applicant had approached the learned District Judge, Frirozabad seeking transfer of the appeal from the Court of the Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 1, Firozabad to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned District Judge, Firozabad vide his order dtd. 7/10/2022 has proceeded to reject the transfer application. The learned District Judge, while rejecting the transfer application has remarked taking note of the allegations, that this Court has paraphrased hereinabove, that the ground is augmentative and sans material or evidence to substantiate. It has also been remarked that the transfer application has been made with the object to delay proceedings. Having failed before the learned District Judge, the applicant has moved the present transfer application under Sec. 24 C.P.C.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Arimardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.