LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-325

PREM GARG Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS

Decided On April 11, 2008
PREM GARG Appellant
V/S
District Judge And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to assail the order passed by the leaned District Judge, Gorakhpur on 25th January 2008 by which he has recalled Execution Case No. 1 of 2007 and Misc. Case Nos. 17 of 2007 and 1 of 2007 from the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and transferred them to the Court of Judge, Small Cause Courts where they were earlier pending.

(2.) The records of the writ petition indicate that SCC Suit No. 8 of 2006 had been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present petition against respondent No. 4 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 5th October 2006. The decree holders filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2007 before the Judge, Small Cause Courts, which was Executing Court. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the Judgment and order dated 5th October 2006 and this was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2007. The records of the writ petition also indicate that a communication was sent by the then Executing Court to the learned District Judge for transferring the case from his Court and on that letter the learned District Judge passed the following order on 7th January 2007:

(3.) It transpires that Sri B.K. Singh, Judge, Small Cause Courts, was subsequently transferred to District Sant Kabir Nagar and so a communication was sent by plaintiff-decree holder that as the Executing Court had been transferred and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur was busy with the work of his own Court, it would be in the interest of justice that the matter be sent back to the Judge, Small Cause Courts so that it could be decided expeditiously. On the said application, learned District Judge recalled the Execution Case and the Misc. Cases and transferred them back to the Judge, Small Cause Courts since the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was busy with the work of his own Court. It is this order that has been impugned by the petitioner.