RAJKOT CANCER SOCIETY Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. B. P. Tanna appears and waives service of Rule for the respondent.

(2.) Mr. P. M. Raval learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the learned Assistant Judge Rajkot on the ground that the learned Judge has directed that the matter which was to he heard by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot be transferred to the Court of the 1st Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot. Mr. Raval has urged that the learned Judge has not set out any reason why the matter has been transferred from one Court to another. According to him there is no reason to believe that the Court before which the matter is pending should not be able to dispose it of expeditiously.

(3.) Mr. B. P. Tanna has very fairly stated that there is no express reason set out by the learned Judge for ordering transfer of the case from one Court to another. But according to him a possible reason could be that in the impugned order the learned Assistant Judge has stated that the learned trial Judge 2 Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) has issued an ex parte mandatory injunction earlier in this matter. According to him another possible ground could be that earlier a suit was filed by the present plaintiff but was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally and hence according to him the learned Assistant Judge may have felt that it would be better that another Court may apply its mind afresh.