Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 TA172.19
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Transfer Application No.172 of 2019
Ajaay Shyam Jajodia ..Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
& anr. ..Respondents
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
V.G. BISHT
Dated : 16th August,2019
(C.R.No.19)
Applicant inperson present.
Advocate Mr.M.B. Jadhav for State/respondent no.1.
Advocate Mr.Kushalkumar D. Shukla for respondent no.2.
O R A L O R D E R
Read application. Read affidavit in reply of respondent no.2.
2 It appears from the contents of application that the present
applicant had earlier moved T.A. No.106/19 which later on came to be
rendered infructuous because of the transfer of the then Presiding Judge of
C.R. No.5 wherein the Execution Application No.9/19 arising out of
Summary Suit No.245/18 was pending. However, while disposing of said
Transfer Application, this court requested the learned Judge of C.R. No.5 to
expedite the hearing of said Execution Application.
3 Now, according to applicant, the learned Judge of C.R. No.5
-- 1 of 5 --
2 TA172.19
has again been transferred and that court is lying vacant. Therefore, he
again requests the transfer of said Execution Application alongwith
incidental proceedings taken out by the respondent either to this court or
to any other experienced additional Judge of this court.
4 This application is resisted by the respondent no.2 on the
ground that despite their being no prayer of expediting the matter, this
court directed the expeditious hearing of the matter as a matter of asking.
According to him, no case is made out for transfer of case. According to
him, if this court is inclined to transfer the matter, then the case may be
transferred to any court Dindoshi Branch only inasmuch the respondent
no.2 being a senior citizen, should not be made to travel from Dindoshi to
Churchgate.
5 Applicant inperson heavily came down on the averments
made in the affidavit cum reply by filing rejoinder, which has been looked
into by me. According to applicant inperson, the respondent no.2 has
made false and frivolous allegations against this court without going into
the prayers of the earlier transfer application. This is nothing but a grave
professional misconduct which calls for stringent and exemplary action
against respondent and his counsel.
6 Mr.K.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.2, on the
other hand, submitted that neither respondent nor he ever intended to
make any grievance or allegations against this court. The averments are
-- 2 of 5 --
3 TA172.19
made only with a view to point out how the applicant is prejudicing the
mind of this court. The applicant is twisting, turning and playing the
words in order to prejudice the mind of this court.
7 The very filing of affidavitinreply of respondent no.2 smacks
of arrogance and ignorance. I have again carefully gone through the
contents of earlier transfer application. Not only there was specific prayer
of expeditious hearing of the Execution Petition No.106/19 but applicant
inperson had advanced oral submission as well before this court at the
time of hearing of the same. The audacity of respondent no.2 and his
counsel is apparent when they repeatedly employ and harp that the
expeditious hearing was granted only as a matter of asking. This kind of
pleading, to the mind of this court, was absolutely uncalled for having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel and
respondent no.2 ought to have been cautious and circumspect before
putting the unwarranted words in the petition which were not justifiable
by any means. The conduct so reflected by both i.e. respondent no.2 and
learned counsel is unacceptable. What is more disturbing is that the
learned counsel has forgotten the code of ethic that enjoins upon him that
he is also officer of the court first and advocate of his client only thereafter.
The learned counsel as well as respondent no.2 are, therefore, cautioned
not to make such a reckless statement in future.
8 Coming to the merits of the application, not only the execution
application is pending but it appears that Notice of Motions have also been
taken out by the respondent no.2. Admittedly, the C.R. No.5 is lying
-- 3 of 5 --
4 TA172.19
vacant and thus the vacancy is causing inconvenience to both the parties.
Let the whole matter be decided by regular court so that the controversy
between the parties is settled at the earliest. In the circumstances, this
court is inclined to transfer said application. The learned counsel for
respondent has no objection. His only request is that the matters be kept
at Dindoshi only so that respondent no.2 being a senior citizen should not
be put to inconvenience. I find merit in the submission of learned counsel.
9 In view of above, I pass the following order:
O R D E R
Transfer Application No.172/19 is allowed.
Execution Application No.9 of 2019, connected summary suit
no.245/18 (already disposed of on 20/12/18), and Notice of
Motions bearing no.1581/19 and 2021/19 filed by respondent
no.2 pending in C.R. No.5 (at Dindoshi) stand transferred to
C.R. No.4 (at Dindoshi).
Concerned Courts be informed accordingly.
16/08/2019 (V. G. BISHT)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 16/08/2019
Transcribed on : 19/08/2019
Signed by HHJ on : 19/08/2019
-- 4 of 5 --
5 TA172.19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 19/08/2019 (2.10 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri V.G. BISHT(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 16th August,2019
Order signed by P.O. on 19th August,2019
Order uploaded on 19th August,2019
-- 5 of 5 --