Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/487/2011 of RAJ KUMARI Vs SUKHDEV SINGH RANA on 29 December 2011
Whether reporters of the local papers may be al l owed t o see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CMPMO No.487 of 2011. Decided on: December 29, 2011. 1. Smt. Raj Kumari, w/o Ashwani Kumar. 2. Ashwani Kumar Sharma S/o Hukam Chand. Both
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA.
CMPMO No.487 of 2011.
Decided on: December 29, 2011.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Smt. Raj Kumari, w/o Ashwani Kumar.
2. Ashwani Kumar Sharma S/o Hukam Chand.
Both residents of Rajeshwan Lodge, Fingask Estate ( North Bank Estate), Shimla-3, H.P.
..Petitioners/Defendants.
Versus
1. Sukhdev Singh Rana, S/o Dalip Singh, Retd. Chief Engineer, R/o VPO Badhara, Sub Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P.-177209. R/o VPO Badhara, Sub Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P.-177209.
..Respondent/Plaintiff.
2. Director, Town & Country Planning Department, New Shimla- 171009, H.P. 171009, H.P.
3. Shimla Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, Shimla-171001. Shimla-171001.
4. Naresh Kumar Sharma, s/o Shiv Kumar, r/o North Bank Estate, Shimla-171003. Shimla-171003.
..Proforma Respondents/Defendant
_________________________________________________________________
Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for transfer of the case from the Court of Learned District Judge, Shimla Shri Shamsher Singh to any other Court titled as Sukhdev Singh vs. Raj Kumari Appeal No.72-S/13 of 10/06.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate, vice Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate.
__________________________________________
For Respondents: Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl.Advocate General for respondents No.2 and 3.
None for others respondents.
__________________________________________________________________
Surinder Singh, Judge(oral):
This petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of Civil-appeal No.72S/13 of 10/06titled Sukhdev SinghVs. Raj Kumai from the Court of learned District Judge to any other Court.
2. Heard.
3. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the learned District Judge, a Local Commissioner was appointed. He submitted his report on 12.12.2011. The case was listed for his statement. The appellant cross-examined the Local Commissioner for sometime. Learned District Judge noticed that initially new Khasra No.636 was carved out at the time of last settlement and was allotted to the respondent/ plaintiff, however, later on this field number was stated to have been allotted to petitioner No.1 Raj Kumari. The Tehsildar Settlement sought time to find out how khasra No.636 was allotted to Raj Kumari aforesaid and how the respondent herein was compensated therefor. The learned District Judge also took note of the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by him, whereby the Local Commissioner was directed to carry out the demarcation as per new and old record of rights, but during his examination in the Court, Local Commissioner (Tehsildar) stated that he carried out the demarcation only with reference to old/ pre settlement record of rights. Thus, the learned District Judge ordered that the demarcation as per new record of rights be carried out and the matter is adjourned for 30.12.2011.
Against the aforesaid background, the petitioner alleged that the learned District Judge has shown special interest to support plaintiff Sukhdev Singh and his conduct appears to be prejudicial towards the petitioner-defendant. Further that the cross-examination of the Local Commissioner was deferred on 12.12.2011. The petitioner herein applied for the urgent copy on the same date, which was supplied to him on 21.12.2011. In the meantime, the case was fixed for 24.12.2011 for recording the statement of the Local Commissioner and then adjourned for 30.12.2011. It shows unholy haste on his part.
As a matter of fact, the appeal is pending before the learned District Judge since the year 2006. In my opinion, the order dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) does not show any bias, rather this order was required to be passed in view of
Conclusion
the order dated 9.3.2011 to do complete justice inter-se the parties. The apprehension in the mind of petitioners appear to baseless, as such, the petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
December 29, 2011. (Pds)
(Surinder Singh) Judge