Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ram Singh vs Raju Singh on 15 September, 2023

Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas

[2023:RJ-JD:29692]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 90/2023

Ram Singh S/o Shri Sugan Singh, Aged About 75 Years, Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajsthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Raju Singh S/o Late Puran Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan)

2. Mohar Singh S/o Late Birju Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, (Rajasthan)

3. Chandra Kanwar S/o Late Puran Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

4. Chhatu Singh S/o Late Puran Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

5. Magan Kanwar D/o Late Puran Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

6. Manju Kanwar D/o Late Puran Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

7. Samudra Singh S/o Late Puran Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

8. Saroj Kanwar D/o Late Puran Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

9. Karni Singh S/o Late Panne Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

10. Durjan Singh S/o Late Panne Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

11. Nanu Bai D/o Late Panney Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

12. Nop Kanwar D/o Late Panney Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

13. Santosh Kanwar D/o Late Panne Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

14. Supyar Kanwar D/o Late Panne Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

15. Madan Kanwar W/o Late Birju Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

16. Suman Kanwar D/o Late Birju Singh, Resident Of Malpur,

[2023:RJ-JD:29692] (2 of 6) [CTA-90/2023]

Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

17. Prem Kanwar D/o Late Birju Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

18. Chand Kanwar D/o Late Birju Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

19. Meenu Kanwar D/o Late Birju Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

20. Jaipal Singh S/o Late Birju Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

21. Preetam Singh S/o Late Birju Singh, Resident Of Malpur, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Rajasthan)

22. Tehsildar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Deendayal Chitlangi
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Deependra Singh Shekhawat



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

                                 Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                                 15/09/2023

The present transfer application under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC for

short) has been preferred by the petitioner against the order

dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu

whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of

the CPC for transferring the Civil Original Suit No.26/2022 (Raju

Singh Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.) as well as Civil Misc. Case

No.15/2012 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and Civil Misc.

Case No.27/2022 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC pending

before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ratangarh to any other

competent court of District Churu, has been rejected.

 [2023:RJ-JD:29692]                      (3 of 6)                              [CTA-90/2023]


2.      Learned      counsel    for     the       petitioner        submits     that   the

respondents have filed a civil suit seeking decree of declaration

and permanent injunction alongwith application for temporary

injunction before the court of learned Senior Civil Judge,

Ratangarh on 30.7.2022 and the petitioner, thereafter, submitted

reply to the application for temporary injunction, written

statement and the counter claim. It is submitted that in the said

suit proceedings, the Mauka Commissioner was appointed, who

visited the spot on 09.08.2022 and submitted his report alongwith

map and photographs. Aggrieved by the said report, the petitioner

submitted an application under Order 26 Rule 10(2) read with

Section 151 of the CPC stating inter alia that the report of the

Mauka Commissioner is incomplete and it was prayed that the

Mauka Commissioner may be called in Court for recording his

statement and for cross-examination, but the said application was

rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2022.

3. Learned counsel further submits that on 15.10.2022, the

respondents-plaintiffs Raju Singh and Mohar Singh filed an

application under Section 151 of the CPC and on the same day,

the petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 1 and 2 of

the CPC, but the petitioner's application was rejected with cost of

Rs.2,000/-. On 9.11.2022, the petitioner filed another application

under Order 18 Rule 18 of the CPC, which too, was dismissed vide

order dated 16.11.2022 with cost of Rs.3,000/-.

4. Learned counsel submits that in view of the above, it is clear

that the learned trial Court is biased against the petitioner and the

[2023:RJ-JD:29692] (4 of 6) [CTA-90/2023]

Presiding Officer of the Civil Court, Ratangarh has expressed such

a view during the course of hearing that the petitioner has lost

faith. Apart from this, the plaintiffs/respondents are claiming that

they will get their desired judgment and decree. Therefore, it is

prayed that the Civil Suit no.26/2022 and Civil Misc. Case

No.15/2022 and Civil Misc. Case No. 27/2022 pending before the

Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ratangarh may be transferred to any

other competent court at Churu. In support of his contentions,

learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered

in the case of Meeta Agarwal Vs. Hathroigari Grah Nirman

Sehkari Samiti, Jaipur reported in 2022(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1515.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioner is making vague and baseless allegations not only

against the respondents but also against the Presiding Officer. It

is further submitted that the learned District Judge, Churu has

rightly rejected the application under Section 24 of the CPC vide

impugned order dated 12.5.2023 and the same warrants no

interference by this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. This Court in Hotel Clarks Amer Vs. Explorers reported in

2013 SCC OnLine Raj 237 in para no.3 held as under:

"3....... There is nothing on record to establish that the plaintiff is not likely to be allowed proper consideration of its case in the dispute set up by it before the trial court. It appears to this

[2023:RJ-JD:29692] (5 of 6) [CTA-90/2023]

Court that an unwarranted and unjustifiable inference has been drawn by the plaintiff from the proceedings before the trial court anxious merely to expedite the adjudication of the dispute as laid before the Court. It is also relevant to note that admittedly the

suit is at the stage of final hearing before the trial court. "

8. Similarly, this court in Roop Narayan Vs. Sushila Devi

reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 7 in held as under:

"The allegations appear to have been made feeling frustrated on account of rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC on the date when the incident alleged to have been happened."

9. At this stage, it is apt to reproduce the observations/findings

arrived at by the learned District Court while deciding the

application under Section 24 of the CPC, which reads thus:

"--- fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ls tks fVIi.kh bl U;k;ky; }kjk ryc dh xbZ Fkh mlesa oLrqr% ;g rF; Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ i{k }kjk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k ewy okn esa nks izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 o vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 lhihlh ds izLrqr fd;s x;s blds vykok nl vU; izkFkZuk i= i=koyh ij izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa tks fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt fd;s x;s gSaA vafre nks izkFkZuk i=] Øe'k% vkns'k 11 fu;e 12 ,oa vkns'k 18 fu;e 18 lhihlh ds varxZr Øe'k% fnukad 19&10&2022 o 16&11&2022 dks [kkfjt fd;s x;s gSa tks fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk Øe'k% nks gtkj :i;s o rhu gtkj :i;s dksLV ij [kkfjt fd;s x;s FksA bu nks izkFkZuk i=ksa ds iwoZ dksbZ Hkh izkFkZuk i= dksLV ij [kkfjt ugha fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk pwafd mDr okn i=koyh ,oa lacaf/kr fofo/k i=koyh esa ,d ds ckn ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;s x;s bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;;ky; }kjk vuko';d :i ls izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus ds izkFkhZ@izfroknh ds O;ogkj ij fu;a=.k djus gsrq dksLV ij vafre nks izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkuk izrhr gksrk gS tks rF; vfHkys[k ls izdV gSA vr% fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i=ksa dks dksLV ij [kkfjt djus ds vk/kkj ij ,slk dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk izkFkhZ ds izfr :[k i{kikriw.kZ vFkok vuqfpr Fkk fo'ks"kdj rc tcfd mDr izkFkZuk i=ksa ij fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa ds xq.kkoxq.k ij izkFkhZ dh dksbZ vkifÙk VªkalQj ihfV'ku esa vafdr ugha gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk bu izkFkZuk i=ksa ij ikfjr vkns'kksa dh oS/krk dks jhfotu vFkok vU; dk;Zokgh esa l{ke U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh fn;s tkus ds rF; Hkh vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA vr% Li"V gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ ds fofHkUu izkFkZuk

[2023:RJ-JD:29692] (6 of 6) [CTA-90/2023]

i=ksa ij ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'kksa dh oS/krk ds fcanw ij pqukSrh fn;s tkus ds rF; Hkh vfHkys[k ij ugha gSaA vr% Li"V gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ ds fofHkUu izkFkZuk i=ksa ij ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'kksa dh oS/krk ds fcanw ij pqukSrh fn;s fcuk ek= izkFkZuk i=ksa dks [kkfjt dj nsus ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh ;g vk'kadk fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds orZeku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ls mls U;k; izkIr ugha gksxk] fuewZy ,oa v;qfDr;qDr gSA izkFkhZ }kjk bl vk'k; ds tks rF; VªkalQj ihfV'ku esa vafdr fd;s x;s gSa fd jktq flag o eksgj flag mldk etkd mM+krs gSa] /kedh nsrs gSa] U;k;ky; ls dksLV yxokdj vkosnu [kkfjt djokus dh ckr dgrs gSa ;s lHkh vkjksi Vague gSa rFkk budk leFkZu djus okyh dksbZ lkexzh i=koyh ij ugha gS vU;Fkk Hkh ;g vkjksi U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds fo:) ugha gSA"

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

after perusing the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned

District Judge, Churu rejecting petitioner's application under

Section 24 of the CPC, I am of the considered opinion that after

considering each and every aspect of the matter, the learned

District Judge, Churu has rightly rejected the application under

Section 24 of the CPC. The order passed by the learned District

Judge, Churu is well reasoned and speaking order and therefore,

calls for no interference by this Court.