HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 4 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 290 of 2012 Petitioner :- Shakeela Respondent :- Mehboob Ali Siddiqui Petitioner Counsel :- Rajiv Gupta,Dileep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta,Shristi Gupta Respondent Counsel :- S.M.Upadhyay Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Miss Shristi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Sri S.M.Upadhyay has appeared for the opposite party. The applicant has applied under Section 24 C.P.C. for the transfer of Civil Appeal No.108 of 2002 (Shakeela Vs. Mehbood Ali Siddiqui) from the court of Additional District Judge Court No.22, Allahabad to some other competent court within the same judgeship. The aforesaid appeal arises out of judgment, order and decree dated 23.5.2002 passed in Original Suit No329 of 1986 which is said to be for cancellation of a sale deed. The applicant had previously filed an application before the District Judge for transfer of the proceedings which was rejected by the District Judge vide order dated 22.8.2012. In the above circumstances, the applicant by the aforesaid transfer application is not only seeking transfer of the proceedings from one court to another but has also prayed for setting aside the order of the District Judge 22.8.2012. The order of the District Judge passed in exercise of power under Section 24 C.P.C. is not an appealable order nor the same can be set aside in proceedings under Section 24 C.P.C. before the High Court. On a transfer application the High Court is only concerned with the withdrawal of proceedings from one court and to place it before another court by way of transfer. In view of the above, the prayer for setting aside the order dated 22.8.2012 passed by the District Judge is misconceived and cannot be accepted. The applicant in seeking transfer of the above appeal has taken a ground that the appeal was pending since 2002 and the respondent was not interested in getting it decided but ever since the appeal has been transferred to the above court he started pressing for its early decision and the court has been fixing shorter dates at quick intervals. This gives an impression that there is some connivance between between the opposite party and the Presiding Officer and, as such, the applicant apprehends that she will not get justice from the court concerned. The Court is experiencing that there is general tendency to keep the litigation alive for years. This puts pressure upon the Court. When the court proceeds expeditiously by curtailing adjournments and fixing quick dates then apprehension is that the court is in hand in glove with the other side and when the matter progresses slowly the grievance is otherwise that the court is adopting a casual attitude and is not deciding the matter. In case the court below is making an effort to proceed and decide the appeal pending since 2002 expeditiously and fixing dates on short intervals no exception to it can be taken particularly in the absence of extraneous consideration. Thus, the mere bald allegation that the applicant will not get justice from the court concerned for the reason that the court is proceeding with the matter expeditiously, is not a ground for getting the proceedings transferred. The District Judge in its order has also observed that the apprehension of the applicant is imaginary and based upon conjectures and surmises. The application, as such, has no merit and is rejected. In view of the above, no separate order is required to be passed on the amendment application No.Nil of 2012 filed by the applicant in Court today. Office to allot number to the above application. Order Date :- 10.9.2012
