Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 554 (UTT)

BABA BHUPENDRA GIRI v. MADHU SHARMA

2010-08-05

B.S.VERMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this application, the petitioner has prayed to transfer the Municipal Appeal No. 7 of 2009, Madhu Giri Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad and another pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun to any other District or to any other competent Court. 3. The background of the facts of the case are that the present Chief Judicial Magistrate, the then 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun passed an order on 12.07.2010 on the temporary injunction application in Suit No. 33 of 2008, Baba Bhupendra Giri Vs. Sandhya Bakshi and others. According to the petitioner committed prima facie error while decide the temporary injunction application on the ground that the name of the respondent No. 1 is recorded in the Municipal Board, Rishikesh. 3. Vide order dated 02.07.2010, the Municipal Board, Rishikesh deleted the name of the respondent no. 1 is under challenged in the Municipal Appeal No. 7 of 2010. The present Chief Judicial Magistrate, when he was sitting in the jurisdiction , the Civil Judge (Senior Division) heard the temporary injunction application filed in the aforesaid suit while exercising its jurisdiction in civil side. On the basis of the documents available at the relevant point of time, prima facie he does not find favour to grant interim relief to the plaintiff and the temporary injunction application was dismissed. 4. Now, the Chief Judicial Magistrate hearing the appeal exercising its jurisdiction under the Municipality Act. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the officer concerned when he was sitting in Civil jurisdiction and has committed error in deciding the temporary injunction application, the petitioner has a right to assail the order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that in para No. 11 to the transfer application that the appeal No. 66 of 2009 filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. has already been filed by the applicant, which was subsequently transfer to the Additional District Judge, Rishikesh. 6. Prima facie, the findings, which has been recorded by the 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, does not operate resjudicata between the parties. The order is also under challenged in appeal before the District Judge. The proceedings under the Municipal Act are summary in nature. 7. 6. Prima facie, the findings, which has been recorded by the 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, does not operate resjudicata between the parties. The order is also under challenged in appeal before the District Judge. The proceedings under the Municipal Act are summary in nature. 7. In view of the above facts, I find no good grounds to transfer the appeal to another Court. The civil transfer application is rejected. 8. All pending applications stands disposed of accordingly.