Skip to content


Muhammad Safdar Husen Vs. Puren Chand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR20All395
AppellantMuhammad Safdar Husen
RespondentPuren Chand and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 25 - transfer--application to high court after rejection of a similar application by the district judge--application disallowed. - .....to the court of some native subordinate judge. the application is made by the defendant in the suit. a rule was obtained calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the transfer asked for should not be made. the parties have appeared to-day. i have heard the arguments of counsel on each side and considered the affidavits and counter-affidavits filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant. in my opinion the rule must be discharged. it appears that the suit was instituted in the court of the subordinate judge of cawnpore on the 27th of much 1897. owing to the pressure of case work in that court the date fixed for the trial of the case was the 2nd of january 1899. on the ground that some of the witnesses who were to be examined were advanced in years, the plaintiffs moved the district.....
Judgment:

Aikman, J.

1. This is an application asking this Court to transfer a civil suit now pending in the Court of the District Judge of Cawnpore to the Court of some native Subordinate Judge. The application is made by the defendant in the suit. A rule was obtained calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the transfer asked for should not be made. The parties have appeared to-day. I have heard the arguments of counsel on each side and considered the affidavits and counter-affidavits filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant. In my opinion the rule must be discharged. It appears that the suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore on the 27th of Much 1897. Owing to the pressure of case work in that Court the date fixed for the trial of the case was the 2nd of January 1899. On the ground that some of the witnesses who were to be examined were advanced in years, the plaintiffs moved the District Judge to call up the case to his own file in order that it might be token up at an early date. The District Judge granted this application, and fixed the 30th of March 1898 as the date upon which the case was to be taken up Before it came on for hearing the rule referred to above was obtained. The learned advocate for the plaintiffs in allowing cause argued on the strength of the ruling in Farid Ahmad v. Dulari Bibi I.L.R. 6 All. 233, that this Court ought not to grant the application for transfer, as to do so would be to review an order passed by the District Judge under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which in the case cited it was held this Court was incompetent to do. I am of opinion there is force in this contention. I am further of opinion that on the merits, and with reference to the counter-affidavit filed by the plaintiffs, sufficient cause has not been shown for removing the suit from the Court of the District Judge. If the parties think that the District Judge is not sufficiently acquainted with the character in which the disputed signatures are written, it will be open to them to call the evidence of experts. For the above reasons I discharge the rule with costs. Under Rule 213 of the Rules of Court of the 18th of January 1898, I fix the advocate's fee at Rs. 64.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //