1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REIVISION APPLICATION NO. 17/2011 (Kisanrao Bhimrao Patkar - Vs. -Smt. Vatsalabai Dnyandeorao Apotikar ) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri B.N.Mohta, counsel for applicant Shri L.A. Mohta, counsel for non-applicant ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2011. This revision challenges the order dated 30th October, 2010, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Akola, rejecting the application under Section 24 of C.P.C to transfer Regular Darkhast No. 33/2008, MJC No. 30/2008 and 53/2010, pending in different courts to one of the courts. After going through the contentions of the parties, the learned District Judge has dealt with the issue as under; “7 . After hearing both the counsel and in the light of the facts mentioned in the application and say, I find that the 2 execution proceeding i.e. R.D. No. 33/08 has no relevance with the proceedings filed under Order IX, Rule XIII of the Civil Procedure Code i.e. MJC Nos. 30/08 and 53/10. Whatever evidence the applicant has to adduce is only in the proceeding for setting aside ex parte decree and application for condonation of delay. Therefore, in view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that merely the applicant wants to transfer the proceedings; that cannot be a legal and valid ground to transfer all the matters in question to one court. So called convenience of the applicant in the present matter has no relevance. In view of above facts, I do not find any reason to accept the request made by the applicant for transfer of above referred matters to one of the Courts. Hence, the following order. Order. The application is rejected.” Shri B.N.Mohta, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has urged that if both the proceedings are clubbed together and tried by the same court, no prejudice would be caused. He submits that although the discretion is conferred under Section 24 of C.P.C., in the matter of transfer, the same has to be exercised judiciously. 3 According to him, the learned District Judge ought to have seen that no prejudice will be caused to the parties if the matters are directed to be decided by one court. Perusal of the consideration by the Principal District Judge as is reproduced above, shows that the relevant aspects have been taken into consideration and the discretion has been exercised for refusing to transfer the proceedings. The same is based upon valid consideration. In view of this, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction. The revision is dismissed. Needless to say that interim order stands vacated. JUDGE Rvjalit