HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sin ie Bench : Honbie ShriH.L.Da u C.J. ’ Writ Petition No. 2219 of 2000 Rajgami Sampada, Rajnandgaon through — Chief Executive OfficerDO. (Civii) Ra}nandgaon, Disit. Rajnandgaon (MP) VefSUS 1n District & Sessions Judge, Rainandgaon aged about 45 yaars, Residence of Kaptee Line, Rajnahdgaon (MP) Peion under Articies 226/227 of the Constitution of india. tit Shri BF. Gupta counsel for the petitioner Shri P‘K. Verrna, Sr. Adv. with Shri Sumit Verma, counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. Shri V.K. Shanna. counsei for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3‘“ May, 20m) Preseni : Defendant in Civil Suit No. 29-N97 is the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Articies 226/227 of the Constitution oi lndia. the plaintiff before the trial Court. The Civil‘ Suit No. 29-N97 was fiied against defendants fo'r declaration, possession and permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner lS m (MP) 2 First Civil, Judge Ciass i, ‘ Rajnandgaon (MP) 3. First Civil Judge Class ~li, Rajnancigaon 4 (MP) Nand Kishor Sharma S/o Omkar Kajodmai (2) The reliefs sought for by the petitioner are as under :- "i To quash the order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 2209-98. 2. To quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 21-09-98. 3. To quash further proceeding pending before the second respondent,” (3) The facts in nutshell are, that the 4‘“ respondent in the writ petition was defendant in the suit namely the petitioner herein from interfering with the plaintiff‘s peacefui possessian and enjoyment over the disputed propedy. (4) it is the case of the defendant f petitioner before this Court that the teamed triai Judge after recording the evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties to the iis by his order dated 21 09-98 had dismissed the suit. (5) On a compiaint filed by the plaintitt before teamed District & Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, learned Judge has transferred the Civil Suit No'. 29-AIQ7 on the tile of 3'“ respondent to the ftle of 2"“ respondent namely #irst Civil Judge Class—i, Rajnandgaon by invoking his power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (6) The 2"“ respondent after such transfer, i am informed by teamed oounsel Shri B.P. Gupta that nothing is done by the learned Judge and the suit is stilt pending consideration before the 2““ respondent. (7) At the time of hearing of the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri BIP.Gupta has raised three issues for consideration and decision of this Court. They are, ~ the learned District Judge on a complaint tiled by the plaintiff ought not to have transferred the Civil Suit pending on the tile of the 3" x respondent to the 2’“ respondent without the judgment and decree being set-aside by the competent Civil Court ; learned District Judge without hearing the parties to the suit could not have transferred the suit which was pending on the file of 3" respondent to the file of 2"" respondent; and lastly, learned counsel wouid submit that this Court should indicate that from what stage the 2"“ respondent should continue with the Civil Suit No. 29—N97. (8) After the petition was tiled before this Court, the notices were issued to the respondents and the respondents have filed their returns. This Court had also directed the District Judge to make an enquiry and submit a report before this M Court é? (9) At this stage it is relevant to notice, that, the 3'“ respondent herein on 21-09-1998 had made a note in his order sheet that the suit filed by the plaintiff/4‘“ respondent herein is dismissed but actuaiiy on that date the ,iudgment was not fuiiy ready in the sense, that, it was still hait way through the dictation, and even that had not been completed by the Stenographer attached to him. This is evident from the records maintained by the 3‘“ respondent and also the report of the learned Distriet Judge. Judge is a public officer whose function is to declare law; to conduct the trial of causes between litigants according to legal forms and methods. Section 2(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines ‘Judge’ which states that “Judge“ means the Presiding Officer of a Civil Court. Section 2(9) defines the ‘Judgment’ to mean the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. Alternatively it can be stated that the Judgment is the decision of a Court of Justice upon the respectiverlghts and claims of the parties to an action in a suit submitted to it for determination. The word ‘Judgment’ denotes the reasons which the Court gives in its decision. it is a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability and does not include a mere formal order or an order regulating the procedure in a suit. Section 2 (‘l 4) speaks of 'order‘ to mean the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. This formal expression can be made by the Judge oniy after the decision is pronounced in the open Court as required under Order XX Rule’l,2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Code does not envisage the writing of a judgment after deciding the case. ln the present case, even before the judgment was ready for pronouncement, the learned Judge makes the pronouncement of the same in the open Court by making note in the ordersheet maintained by the Court. To say the least, noting made in the order—sheet, first and foremost, disclose the ignorance of the 3'“ respondent with regard to the judicial proceedings and secondiy it also shows the lack of knowledge of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. To put it verymildly that it is “judicial indecency’. d1 (10) The 3'“ responclent has med his return. before this Court in which he stated that he had given dictation of part of the judgment to his Stenographer and the remaming portion had been written in his own hand writing and it was handed ‘ over to his Stenographer for being typed. According to the iearned Judge, since his judgment had already ieaked out to his Stenographer! he had noted in the order sheet that suit of the piaintiff is rejected. As i have already stated, before the iudgment was fuliy ready, the 3'“ respondent had no business to make a note in his order sheet that the suit of the parties is rejected. (1 1) On a complaint tiled by the 4‘" respondent, the learned District Judge has transferred the brief from the Court of the 3'“ respondent to the Court of the 2"“ respondent. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner Shri B.P. Gupta wouid submit that under Section 24 of the CPO, learned District Judge has no authority to transfer a case which is already disposed of. ln support of the stand learned counsel has invited my attention to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure the said Section reads as under :- “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. [(3) For the purpose of this sectionr (a) Courts of Additionai and Assistant Judges shaii be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.] (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. [(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.]" Q (1a) A perusal of Section 24 of CPC would demonstrate two things; (i) High Court or District Court on an application filed by the parties can transfer a case pending before the Court. If it is on the request made by the parties, then the provision itself would make it clear that the parties are required to be heard in the matter, or (ii) High Court or District Court suo motu can transfer a petition/plaint etc. and while doing so the question of hearing the parties would not arise. In the instant case, the complaint was tiled by the defendant before the learned District Judge. On the basis of the complaint suo motu proceedings had been initiated by the learned District Judge and therefore, the question of hearing either plaintiff or the defendant would not arise. The submission made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, is devoid of merit and therefore, requires to be rejected and it is rejected Last submission that was made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that from what stage the leamed Judge, on whose Board thefrle is transferred, should decide the case. The matter had been heard by the third respondent, but he had not pronounced the judgment as required under the Code of Civil Procedure. At this stage, the matter was transferred from the third respondent to second respondent. The learned Judge before whom the tile is transferred has now required to hear the parties to the suit and then proceed to pass appropriate orders with the available evidence on record. (1 3) In view of the above discussion, the foliowing : OR[)ER (i) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The second respondent -— First Civil Judge, Class-I, Rajandgaon is directed to issue appropriate notice to the parties to the [is and i ” then paseappropriate orders in accordance with iaw, as eariy as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the original records from this Court. (iii) The Registry is directed to send back all the original records forthwith to the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to decide the suit as directed by me earlier within two months and submit a report to the Registrar General of this Court. Ordered accordingly. ‘ . ll l sdl- ' J1 Chief Justice i