JAMBU KUMAR JAIN Vs. KAILASH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present transfer application has been filed by the applicant under Sec. 24 of CPC, who is the appellant in the appeal being No. RA 80/2010, pending before the Court of Appellate Rent Control Tribunal (District & Sessions Court), Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal"), seeking transfer of the said appeal to any other Court outside the District, Kota. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Asgar Khan, for the applicant that as per the affidavit filed by the applicant, one unknown person had tried to contact him and asked him to pay Rs. 3 lacs for getting the appeal decided in his favour, and that on 29.07.2013, the applicant had seen the said person alongwith the respondent coming out of the chamber of the Presiding Officer, in whose Court the appeal was pending. According to him, he had no faith in the said Presiding Officer, and therefore, the appeal pending before him was required to be transferred to any other Court outside the District Kota. However, the learned counsel Mr. Nagesh Soral, for the respondent relying upon the reply filed by the respondent, submitted that the present application was filed by the applicant only to delay the appeal proceedings, as he is facing an eviction decree. He further submitted that the allegations made by the applicant are very vague in nature and serious view should be taken against the applicant for filing such frivolous application.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent having filed the suit for eviction against the applicant, the Rent Control Tribunal vide the order dt. 28.10.2010 had passed the decree of eviction, against which the appeal was filed by the applicant before the Appellate Tribunal, Kota. It further appears that the Appellate Court had granted sufficient time to the learned counsel for the applicant to argue the appeal, however the learned counsel for the applicant was not proceeding with the matter. Lastly he sought time on the ground that he wanted the appeal to be transferred from the said Appellate Tribunal Kota. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, vide the order dt. 19.07.2013 had adjourned the hearing and fixed the same on 17.08.2013. According to the applicant, the matter was thereafter kept on 29.07.2013, on which day at 10:30 A.M. he had seen one person alongwith the respondent coming out of the chamber of the Presiding Officer, and that the said person was the same who had approached the applicant earlier and offered him that if the applicant gave him 3 lacs, he would obtain orders from the Court in favour of the applicant. Since the allegations made in the transfer application were very vague, this Court vide the order dt. 25.10.2013 had directed the learned counsel for the applicant to submit an affidavit of the applicant either in English or in Hindi in support of the allegations made in the application and also warned that if the allegations were found to be false, serious action shall be taken against the applicant. The applicant, thereafter, having filed the affidavit in Hindi, the learned counsel for the respondent had filed reply to it denying the allegations made in the application.