V RAJKUMAR Vs. C M ABU MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2-2-2009 passed in Misc. No. 1029/2008 by the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore. By the said order the miscellaneous petition has been dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that o. S. No. 16707/2002 is pending on the file of CCH20 Mayo Hall Unit at Bangalore. The said suit is for ejectment of the petitioner herein and the same has been filed by the respondents herein. The Original Suit No. 16483/2001 is pending in CCH 29 Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore and the said suit is for partition and separate possession. The relief claimed by the petitioner herein in the miscellaneous petition filed before the Principal city Civil Judge, Bangalore was for transfer of O. S. No. 16707/02 pending on the file of cch 20 to any other Court after clubbing the same with O. S. No. 16483/2001. However, during the course of submission before this court, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the relief is restricted to only transfer of O. S. No. 16707/2002 pending on the file of CCH20 to any other Court for disposal in accordance with law.

(3.) IN the petition seeking for transfer, the petitioner has submitted that on account of certain observations made by the presiding officer in O. S. No. 16707/02 of CCH 20 in which the same is pending and further, due to the grave and serious apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that justice would not be rendered to him in the said suit, the petition for transfer was filed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said transfer petition, this revision petition has been preferred. In the case put forth by the petitioner before the Prl. City civil Judge, it was contended that there were about 2,332 cases pending in CCH20 and among them 920 cases were listed for evidence, but the Court was giving lot of priority to the instant suit. That though the application for interrogatories in the suit has been filed, the same was not answered, but the presiding officer was insisting for cross-examination of PW1 and further to proceed with the examination of DWs. 1 and 2 and that the observations made by the presiding officer and the fact that he was not accommodating the petitioner's counsel in the matter of adjournments and in general the conduct of the presiding officer during the course of the proceedings in the said original suit had caused an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner and therefore, the transfer petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC has to be allowed.