- (1.) HON'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.- This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the judgment and order dated 11. 11. 2008 passed by learned District Judge, Sitapur in Misc. Civil Case No. 150 of 2008, Akhtar v. Mathura and others, whereby the transfer application of the revisionist moved under Section 24 of CPC has been rejected.
(2.) THE Original Suit No. 387 of 1992, Akhtar v. Mathura and offers was filed by the revisionist for demolition and recovery of possession and for permanent injunction and the said suit is pending before the Civil Judge (S. D.), Sitapur. An application under Section 24 of CPC was filed by the revisionist before the District Judge, Sitapur on the allegation that Rajesh, Orderly of Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Civil Judge (S. D.), Sitapur before whom the suit of revisionist is pending took Rs. 50/- note from the pocket of Mohd. Aslam, general power attorney holder of the revisionist without his consent in front of the Presiding Officer and the said Orderly stated that since the Presiding Officer himself takes bribe, therefore, he has taken out the said money. It was further alleged that Mohd. Aslam power attorney holder of the revisionist himself saw the opposite party No. 1 coming out from the chamber of Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Civil Judge (S. D.), Sitapur, it shocked his conscious and has no hopes of any justice from him. THE said application has been dismissed by the Court below. Hence this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. The District Judge, Sitapur in his impugned order has mentioned that the revisionist earlier also filed two such transfer applications wherein similar kind of allegations were made by him and it is further mentioned that when the repeated adjournment applications filed by the revisionist were rejected, the said transfer application making frivolous allegations against the Presiding Officer was filed.
(3.) THE affidavit in support of the transfer application has not been filed by the revisionist himself but the same has been filed by his general power attorney holder Sri Mohd. Aslam. The Presiding Officer also submitted his comments before the District Judge and specifically denied the allegations made by the revisionist and stated that the matter is very old and was to be decided at the earliest in view of the direction of the Hon'ble Court. It is further stated that rejection of the adjournment application prompted the revision to move the transfer application on frivolous, concocted and imaginary grounds.;