Court No. - 4 Case :- CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 106 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Varshney Respondent :- M/S Hajari Lal Kishori Lal And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Manoj Kumar Gupta
Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Diwakar Rai
Sharma, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.
3.
Undisputed facts are that during the pendency of the objection
filed by the applicant, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 27
of 1982 to the execution proceedings, evidence of the respondent-
decree holder was closed. After about two years, application filed
by the respondent to recall the order was allowed. The judgment-
debtor challenged the recall order before this Court by filing Civil
Revision No. 732 of 1987, wherein the operation of the order was
stayed and as a result, the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 27 of
1982 remained stayed. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed vide
order dated 08.09.2009 and the proceedings before the executing
court resumed. Misc. Case No. 27 of 1982 was pending before
Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh. After the
proceedings were resumed with the dismissal of the revision by
this Court, somehow the record was transmitted to the Court of
Additional District Judge, Court No. 11. An objection was raised on
behalf of applicant-judgment debtor that there being no order of
transfer passed by District Judge, the record could not have been
transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 9
to Additional District Judge, Court No. 11.
Shri M.K. Gupta appearing for the applicant has submitted that in
view of the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Bengal Agra Assam
Civil Courts Act, without an order passed by the District Judge, the
record of proceedings pending before one Additional District Judge
cannot be transferred to another Additional District Judge.
Shri Diwakar Rai Sharma appearing for the respondent states that
revision has been filed raising a technical plea to delay the
proceedings.
It is apparent from the record that the execution proceedings are
pending since 1987.
Considering the facts and circumstances and without entering into
the question as to whether there was an order transferring the
record from Additional District Judge, Court No. 9 to Court No. 11
and whether he had jurisdiction to proceed with the case, interest
of justice would stand served by directing the District Judge,
Aligarh to decide the proceedings himself as expeditiously as
possible.
The civil revision, accordingly, stands disposed of.
06.08.2010
VKS/ C.R. (106)/10