- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard Sri S. O. P. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge dated September 4, 2006 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 24 C. P. C. has been rejected. The petitioner revisionist moved the District Judge for transfer of execution Case No. 2/1996, which relates to the execution of a decree of ejectment. Against the applicant the decree was passed in March, 1995 and thereafter it was put in execution in 1996. Subsequent thereto, there were sets of objections either under Section 47 or Order XXI, Rule 97 C. P. C. filed against the execution petition but in none of it any stay order of the execution proceeding was granted by the Court below. When the executing Court did not stop the proceeding in the execution matter, the only remedy, which could be visualised by the judgment debtor applicant, is to file a transfer petition before the District Judge. By a well discussed order running into 9-10 pages, the District Judge has dealt upon the entire aspects of the allegations made against the Court by the petitioner and finding no substance therein, the application was rejected by the impugned order. Learned Counsel Sri S. O. P. Agarwal, contends that in-spite of the fact that the decree holder has transferred the decree in favour of somebody else, he is still being permitted to prosecute this execution case, which reflects the bias of the Court. It is further submitted that the prejudice of the Court against the judgment debtor is again demonstrated from the conduct of the Court that it is proceeding in the execution matter in-spite of the fact that neither the decree holder nor his Counsel is appearing before the Court in the case. Therefore, these are such facts, which make out the substantial grounds for transfer of the execution case from the said Court to some other Court of competent jurisdiction in the District.
(3.) I do not agree with the submission advanced from the side of the applicant revisionist. As regards the alleged transfer of the decree by the decree holder in favour of somebody else, it makes no difference so long as the decree of the Court exists in the name of the decree holder and not the transferee. This fact is not disputed that the decree prepared by the Court is still existing in the name of the decree holder. Therefore, the fact that the decree holder has transferred the decree in favour of a third party would not have any adverse effect upon the execution case and executing Court is wholly justified in proceeding with the execution matter pending before it. Second point of argument also does not appear to have much force because if the execution application preferred before the Court alongwith a copy of the decree, is found to be valid and all the steps required for further proceeding in the execution case are complete on the record, the Court has no option but to proceed in accordance with law. It is not necessary that the physical presence of the decree holder or his Counsel should be there before the Court while passing each and every order in that case. The Court is duty bound to proceed in the execution matter if the decree is valid and the steps required under law are complete. Therefore, to say that the Court is proceeding in the execution case without physical presence of the decree holder or his Counsel, is not such a circumstance which can make the Court to draw a presumption of bias or prejudice against the Presiding Officer of the executing the Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this revision petition does not appear to have any substance and the order passed by the District Judge appears to be wholly justified and correct. No interference is required in this revision against the same. The revision is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;