Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2457 (ALL)

ISHTIYAK AHMAD v. MEENA

2016-07-15

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The petitioner is a tenant. He has been ordered to be evicted in proceedings for arrears of rent and eviction by the Small Causes Court. The revision of the petitioner against the said decree is pending but without any interim order or stay of his eviction. 2. In the above circumstances, the respondents landlords applied for execution wherein the petitioner moved an application that the proceedings be adjourned as his revision is pending. The Executing Court adjourned the proceedings but imposed cost of Rs. 1000/-, so the petitioner moved an application under Section 24 C.P.C. for the transfer of the execution proceedings to some other Court. The said application has been rejected by the District Judge by the impugned order dated 9.5.2016. 3. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is settled law that the order passed by the District Judge rejecting application for transfer filed under Section 24 C.P.C. is neither appealable nor revisable and at best is amenable to supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vide Jagdish Kumar v. District Judge, Badaun and others, 1998(1) ARC 305 . 5. The remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinarly remedy of discretionary nature and it cannot be ordinarily permitted to be invoked if the party has any alternative statutory remedy for getting the desired relief. 6. The jurisdiction under Section 24 C.P.C. is concurrent jurisdiction conferred both upon the District Judge and the High Court. Therefore, if an application under Section 24 C.P.C. has been rejected, the party aggrieved may move a fresh application before the High Court under Section 24 C.P.C. itself as has also been laid down by the aforesaid decision. 7. In view of the remedy of filing of a fresh application before the High Court under Section 24 C.P.C. despite rejection of the transfer application by the District Judge, the petitioner is not entitle to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I decline to entertain this writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner. 9. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I decline to entertain this writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner. 9. Notwithstanding the above, the District Judge has refused to transfer the proceedings from the Executing Court as the transfer was sought as the Executing Court had granted adjournment on a cost of Rs. 1000/-. 10. Since the decree passed by the Small Causes Court under execution is not under stay by any Court or higher Court or in the revision, the execution was not liable to be stayed.Therefore, the Executing Court was well within its domain to proceed with the execution and refuse adjournment. In such circumstances no exception can be taken to imposition of cost for granting adjournment sufficient enough to seek transfer of proceedings from the Court concern. 11. The petition as such is not maintainable and is devoid of merit. It is accordingly, dismissed.