Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR.BOMBAY
Transfer Application No.60 of 2019
Smt.Kusum Venkatesh Shet ..Decree holders/
& anr. Applicants
V/s.
Nishigandh Sahaniwas CHS Ltd. ..Judgment debtors
& Ors.
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
SHRI V.G. BISHT
Dated : 12th March,2019
(C.R.No.19)
Applicant no.2 inperson present.
Advocate Mr.A. K. Pophale for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R
Read application. Read say of respondent no.1.
2 It appears that the applicant/decree holder has filed Execution
Application No.597 of 2018 which is pending in C.R. No.1. According to
her, earlier the matter was heard at length and was closed for orders by
Presiding Judge, namely Ms.S. P. Ponkshe who is now transferred to C.R.
No.40. According to her since now the matter is pending in C.R. No.1,
which is a new court and the fact that the matter was already heard and
kept for orders by the earlier Presiding Judge, it is necessary in the interest
of justice to transfer the same to the court of Ms.Ponkshe who has heard
the matter finally.
-- 1 of 5 --
2
3 The respondent/debtor on the other hand opposed the
application contending that the party cannot decide that his or her matter
be heard by particular Presiding Judge. Since the assignment has been
changed, the present Presiding Officer is entitled to decide the Execution
Application. Even otherwise, the litigants should not allow to choose the
forum at their choice.
4 Smt.Shobha V. Shet, decree holder appearing inperson
reiterated the contents raised in her application and submitted that since
the matter is already heard and was kept for orders, it is necessary in the
interest of justice that the same be decided by the said Presiding Officer.
5 As against above, Mr.A. L. Pophale,learned counsel for
respondent, opposed the submissions contending that in view of change in
assignment, it is justifiable for the present Presiding Officer to hear the
matter again and decide the same in accordance with law and the litigants
should not be allowed to choose particular forum.
6 From the submissions advanced by both the parties, what is
apparent from the record is that there is no dispute that the Execution
Application is already heard finally. There is also no dispute that the
matter was kept for orders by Ms.Ponkshe but for change in the assignment
it is now pending in C.R. No.1. In these circumstances, according to
applicant inperson, the interest of justice requires that it should be
-- 2 of 5 --
3
decided by the earlier Judge who had heard both the parties in detail and
had posted the matter for orders.
7 There is nothing wrong in the submissions advanced by the
decree holder inperson. Rather it would save not only time of the parties
but as also of the court because the final hearing is already concluded and
all that is to be done by the earlier Presiding Judge is to pass order in
accordance with law. This being the emerging position, in my considered
opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the matter is
decided by the earlier Presiding Officer namely Ms.Ponkshe.
8 In view of above, I pass the following order:
O R D E R
Transfer Application No.60/2019 is allowed.
Execution Application No.597/2018 pending in C.R. No.1
stands transferred to the court of Ms.S. P. Ponkshe (C.R.
No.40) for disposal in accordance with law.
Both the courts be informed accordingly.
12/03/2019 (V. G. BISHT)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 12/03/2019
Transcribed on : 12/03/2019
-- 3 of 5 --
4
Signed by HHJ on : 12/03/2019
-- 4 of 5 --
5
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 12/03/2019 (4.30 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri V.G. BISHT(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 12th March,2019
Order signed by P.O. on 12th March,2019
Order uploaded on 12th March,2019
-- 5 of 5 --