RATTAN LAL Vs. DHANUK DHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1), whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Sec. 24 of Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners. The said Civil Suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 05.10.2010. The respondent preferred an appeal against the said judgment dated 05.10.2010 before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. However, vide judgment dated 01.05.2014, the matter was remanded to the trial Court after framing some additional issues with a direction to re-consider and give findings on all the issues afresh. Said suit was again decided by the trial Court vide judgment dated 24.09.2014 and suit of the plaintiff-respondent was partly decreed. The petitioners, again being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, filed an appeal, which was decided by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was set aside. The matter was again remanded to the trial Court for its decision afresh in compliance of directions issued vide judgment dated 01.05.2014. After remand, the trial Court made a reference to the District Judge, Chandigarh requesting him to transfer the matter to some other Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that it would be prudent to decide those issues again by some Court of equal jurisdiction as mind has already been applied while deciding the said issues at first instance. Still, the District Judge, did not transfer the suit to any other Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Chandigarh seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh (Sh. Karanvir Singh Maju) to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The District Judge, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 07.09.2015 dismissed the said application, which has been challenged in the present petition by raising various grounds.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed in spite of the fact that the trial Court has already given its mind on the issues and accordingly, it is not in the interest of justice and equity not to transfer the suit. Learned counsel also submits that even the trial Court itself has expressed its reservation in adjudicating the suit afresh on the ground that all the issues have already been decided. The civil suit should have been transferred to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is totally non-speaking and no reason, whatsoever, for rejection of application of the petitioners have been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and it would result in gross abuse of the process of law.