SONELAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court below having taken an erroneous view of the law, the petitioner is in this Court and my attention is drawn by his Counsel to Section 8 of M.P. Act No. 29 of 1984. The provisions of sub -rule (2) of Rule 2, Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been amended thereby in the State of Madhya Pradesh by which the Civil Courts' power to 'stay' operation of any 'order of transfer' and some other orders has been taken away.

(2.) PETITIONER 's counsel Shri Lahoti has made a very short point to assail the validity of the order passed by the Court below. His contention is that what was challenged by him in the suit was not any order of transfer and as such the question of stay of such an order did rot at all a (sic)ise. He has read out to me relevant portion of the plaint and has riveted my attention to para 7 of the plaint. It clearly appears that the order was challenged on the ground that it was not a real order, but it was product of a conspiracy and was devoid of any legal effect as it had no factual basis. The suit was for a declaration that the said order was null and void.