CANARA BANK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks transfer of the execution proceedings pending in the Court of Sh. R.K. Saini, Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon to a Court of competent jurisdiction of any other district. Various averments levelling allegations against the ld. Addl. District Judge have been made which have remained unsubstantiated. It has been alleged that the Presiding Officer has made false statement in his order and have concealed facts by withholding the material submissions. It has further been averred that on 7.5.2003, the executing Court directed the payment of bank guarantee with interest to be paid on 19.5.2003 failing which the necessary legal action was to follow. The afore-mentioned order was challenged in a revision petition before this court which was fixed for final hearing on 23.5.2003. A direction was issued that the executing Court shall adjourn the case to a date beyond 23.5.2003. Accordingly, the executing Court adjourned the case to 30.5.2003. However, on 23.5.2003, the hearing in the revision petition before this Court could not take place nor there was any direction issued to the executing Court directing it to further adjourn the hearing of the case. On 11.6.2003, the executing Court passed the following order :

(2.) I have heard Shri K.D. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner who has argued that once the interim order dated 16.5.2003 passed by this Court in C.M.No. 4354-55 CI of 2003 in C.M. No. 3317 CI of 2003 in RFA No. 2104 of 1992 has not been vacated then it should be deemed to continue even after 23.5.2003. Learned counsel further submitted that the executing Court was bound to adjourn the case even on 11.6.2003 when the order directing the petitioner to furnish pay order/bank draft was passed. For this proposition, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Pirthipal Singh v. Gurdev Singh and another, 2000(4) RCR(Civil) 203 (P&H) : 2001(1) PLR 403.

(3.) ON the basis of the scandalous averments made against a Judicial Officer, contempt proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner. However, taking a lenient view, I refrain from doing so and dismiss the petition with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Haryana Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh within one month from today. A copy of the order of the sent to the Member Secretary, Haryana Legal Services Authority. If the cost is not paid within one month, the Member Secretary, Haryana Legal Services Authority shall inform the Registry which shall list the case before the Bench for appropriate orders. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. Petition dismissed.