IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1852 of 2009 ---- Md. Shahabuddin son of Mustaque Ahmad, Resident of Siwan Kasba, Siwan, Mohalla-Kaghzi, P.O. and P.S.Siwan City, District-Siwan. --Defendant no.1-petitioner. Versus 1. Ainullah khan, son of Md. Yunus Khan Resident of Siwan Kasba Siwan, Mohalla-Naya Bazar Hospital Road, District-Siwan. --Plaintiff no.1 -0pposite party 1st Set. 2. Imtiyaz Ahmad, son of Mustaque Ahmad 3. Bibi Quarisha @ Mazda Khatoon wife of Mustaque Ahmad, Residents of Siwan Kasba Siwan Mohalla Kaghzi, P.O. & P.S. Siwan City Town, District-Siwan. --Defendants-Opposite parties 2nd Set. 4. Sahida Umar wife of Marazuddin Ahmad, Resident of Siwan Kasba, Siwan, Mohalla- Kaghzi, P.O. & P.S.Siwan, District-Siwan. --Plaintiff-opposite party 3rd Set. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra with Mr. Bal Govind Sharma and Mr. Awinash Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 02. 10.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed by defendant no.1-applicant- petitioner challenging order dated 22.8.2009 by which the learned District Judge, Siwan rejected his application bearing Miscellaneous Case No.28 of 2009 for transferring Eviction Suit No.31 of 1990 pending in the court of learned Munsif-I, Siwan to any other court. 3. The aforesaid eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party no.1 for eviction of the defendants on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendants and also personal necessity of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property. The said suit was - 2 - contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and evidence started. 4. It further transpires that when the plaintiff filed an affidavited examination-in-chief of P.W.4, the defendant filed an application for adjournment of the case as he had changed his lawyer and his new lawyer was reluctant to cross-examine the witness without going into all the materials and merits of the case. Although, the defendant prayed for a longer adjournment, but the learned court below granted only one day adjournment for cross-examination of P.W.4. 5. In the said circumstances, the defendant filed Miscellaneous Case No.28 of 2009 before the learned District Judge, Siwan for transfer of the aforesaid eviction suit which was pending before the learned Munsif-I to any other court as the refusal of longer adjournment, according to him, proved that the court was biased against the defendant and was favouring the plaintiff. 6. The learned District Judge, Siwan very carefully looked into the matter and found that the said eviction suit, which was filed on two grounds, including personal necessity, was pending since 1990 and even after 19 years the evidence could not be concluded, as objections were raised on one pretext or the other. Realising it the learned Munsif refused to grant any longer adjournment and gave a short adjournment. 7. It is quite clear that the trial court had not refused adjournment on the application of the defendant, but he merely gave a short adjournment and refused to grant a longer adjournment due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances. It was the duty of the court to decide - 3 - the said eviction suit of 1990 as early as possible without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties and refusal to grant long adjournment cannot, by any means, be assumed to be a biased attitude, rather the trial court was legally bound to refuse such frivolous prayers. In the said circumstances, the learned District Judge was quite justified in rejecting the transfer application bearing Misc.Case No.28 of 2009. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)