It does not make sense to file transfer application
2) personal presence of plaintiff isnot required for each date
3) it is sufficient if represented by lawyer
Section 24 of CPC
Sir Latest Incidence Please note that on every date whenever the Plaintiff filed ‘Application for extending status quo order’ then every time it was kept for ‘SAY’ of Defendant and every time if he was present before Court then he used to write ‘SAY’ on back of the same application. BUT every time the Status Quo Order was extended whether the Defendant filed his 'SAY' or not ? It is pertinent to note that every time the Status Quo Order was extended BUT On last date As usual Plaintiff filed ‘Application for extending status quo order’ and as usual the application was kept for ‘SAY’ of Defendant Though the Defendant was present but he refused to give ‘SAY’ thereon and prayed for adjournment to file ‘SAY’ on the said ‘Application for extending status quo order’ filed by Plaintiff Court allowed him and did not extend Status Quo Order and adjourned the matter for 'SAY' of Defendant on the said ‘Application for extending status quo order’ and thus the said ‘Application for extending status quo order’ is pending and the status quo order was not extended. And as on date the suit property is without any protection thereon whereas the Plaintiff is very punctual in filling Rejoinder, Written arguments on Exhibit-5, etc. Miscellaneous Incidences in past Plaintiff resides 100 kms away from the Court and he is in person and he is C.A. Defendant's Advocate is local So the Plaintiff used to come in 2nd half On March 25, the Plaintiff prayed to the Court to give date after 06 days beyond March 31 because being Chartered Accountants, he was bound to file statutory returns of his clients on or before March 31 But the Defendant's Advocate opposed and pressed and the Court gave next date on March 28 If Judge is going on making such decisions then it will costly affair for Plaintiff to file either Appeal and/or Review every time therefore Plaintiff intends to file Transfer Petition u/s. 24 of CPC before Principal Judge Quarry 1 Whether the case seems to be worth or not Quarry – 2 What is alternate remedy Please Guide HARIOM
Asked 5 years ago in Civil Law
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
9 Answers
The transfer petition case will not be worthy at all a suit for property dispute will be heard in the court having jurisdiction of the area where property is situated.
Any party don't have to appear in person in a civil case they can be represented by their advocates.
On this ground it will be difficult to transfer the same as court needs very cogent reason for the transfer
First of all I wonder why on earth the plaintiff is visiting the court in person when his advocate can very well represent him and there is no mandate for physical presence of the plaintiff.
Secondly the court has made a gross error in not extending the status quo and hence the plaintiff must insist on the next date to regularise the interim order of injunction.
If he refuses which is unlikely the filing appeal under Order 43 CPC remains only option.
It is not fit case for transfer of the suit unless aspersion on the court is made and established before the court of the district judge.
Dear Sir To remain present on every date or not present before Court or hiring any advocate in the matter is not my quarry You have not considered and not referred in your Answer quarry with reference to following :- ‘Application for extension of status quo is kept pending and adjourned on next date for ‘SAY’ of the Defendant whereas he was present before Court Hence as on date, the suit property is open for alienation by the Defendant because status quo order is not extended. Whereas before 08 Months on this ground and fear of alienation of suit property by Defendant, the order of status quo was granted and extended since last 8 Months regularly. The Plaintiff is fully punctual in replying and filed written arguments on Exhibit-5 before 03 Months whereas it is Defendant only who is not advancing arguments on Exhibit-5 for one or the reason since last three Months but Order of Status Quo has been extended regularly Secondly (1) CJJD granted order of status quo and extended it 17 times in last 08 Months with or without SAY of Defendant (2) the Order on Exhibit -5 is postponed because Defendant is not filling/doing arguments on Exhibit-5 whereas Written Arguments on Exhibit -5 has already been filed by Plaintiff before 3 Months Whether in such circumstances it a normal way/route "to Not To Extend Status Quo Order" and keeping the concerned Application pending for SAY of Defendant on next date whereas the Defendant was present in Court ? Please opine HARIOM
Asked 5 years ago
In that scenario you can go in revision to higher court for directions to the trial court for aforesaid issues.
Hi,
The grant of time for say of defendant and adjournment is quite reasonable. You are suggested not to file section24 CPC application only on this ground.
If defendant was present in court he could ha e given his say
2) even if court was inclined to grant time for filing say status quo order should have been extended
3) you can make transfer application if you so desire
The transfer petition before the court competent may not be entertained on such grounds.
If the plaintiff is praying for transfer on the grounds of suspecting the judge's integrity then he may have to make a statement on affidavit narrating the reasons for suspecting the judge's integrity as well as his biased stand.
He may have to look for some other ground to seek transfer.
Actually speaking when the defendant is present before court and has sought time to file his say ion the petition seeking status quo, then the court should have extended the status quo order instead of not doing it, this would set a wrong precedence an also create a suspicion n the minds of litigants in this regard about the presiding officer.
Even though, it is a discretionary power of the presiding officer which cannot be commented upon, however nothing stops you from filing the transfer petition if you feel aggrieved b by this attitude of the presiding officer especially when your property is at the danger of being alienated by the defendant.
You may have to draft the transfer petition very carefully by exaggerating the grievances due to this conduct of the judge of the trail court.