1.Respondent in the present case is duly served. The challenge in this Revision Application is the order passed by the learned District Judge below Application Exh.11 dated 7.1.2000 wherein the learned District Judge has allowed the transfer application No.268/99 filed by the respondent requesting for transfer of C.M.A.No.18/99 from the court of the learned Assistant Judge Shri Trivedi to the court of learned Assistant Judge Shri J.N.Patel. While granting such application, the learned Judge has accepted the case of the respondent by holding that sufficient and reasonable ground is found to transfer the said Appeal. The Application for transfer was submitted under Sec.24 of the C.P.C. and as found from the documents attached to this Revision Application, that the Purshish was filed by the plaintiff that they have no objection to transfer the case to any other court. However, the objection was raised for hearing of the case before the concerned court. Previously the matter was before the court of learned Assistant Judge and the Presiding Officer, before whom the Appeal was pending, could not take the Appeal and the matter was assigned to the court of learned Assistant Judge where the Presiding Officer was Mr. Trivedi. Thereafter, a purshish Exh.10 was filed on 9.12.99 and the learned District Judge has observed that the matter is required to be transferred from the court of the learned Assistant Judge Shri Trivedi to the court of learned Assistant Judge Shri Patel.
2.Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the matter of Rajkot Cancer Society v. Municipal Corporation, reported in 1987(2) GLR 981 and the decision of the Apex court in the matter of R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2778. He has also placed reliance in the matter of Mahabir Prasad Singh v. M/s. Jacks Aviation Pvt.Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 SC 287. In the said decision in paragraph 21 it is held as under:
"Sri Arun Jaitely, learned Senior Counsel, made a plea before us that in view of all what happened and also in the light of the fact that appellant too has no objection to change the Court, the case may be allowed to be transferred to another Court. We have considered the aforesaid plea in all seriousness. We do not come across any valid ground whatsoever for a change of Court. A change of Court is not allowable merely because the other side too has no objection for such change. Or else, it would mean that when both parties combine together they can avoid a Court and get a Court of their own choice. We are not disposed to give such an option to the parties. We, therefore, refrain from accepting to the said plea made by Sri Jaitely."
3.In light of the decisions and the order under challenge, the order passed by the learned District Judge deserves to be set aside. While setting aside the said order, the learned District Judge is directed to decide the application afresh in the light of the decision of the Apex Court as well as the decision of this court and as the application is pending since 1999, the same is ordered to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. While deciding the same, he may also consider for taking up the Application by himself or any other Judge.
4.With these observations, the Revision Application is disposed of.
Dt:2.4.2002(D.K.Trivedi,J) arg