1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2683/2009 Abdul Fazal Vs. Manish Kumar DATE OF ORDER : - 30.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner sought transfer of the Civil Original Suit No.11/2009, which has been declined by the learned District Judge, Merta vide order dated 23rd March, 2009. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the same case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner on 17.2.2009 the court directed to issue notice to the non- applicant in application for grant of injunction and fixed the date as 21.2.2009. The plaintiff-applicant submitted application for preponing the date and on 19.2.2009, the public prosecutor appeared in the civil case for non- applicants nos. 1 and 2 who are Government and Government department and gave undertaking that they 2 will not dispossess the person who is in possession of the property in question, which is a mine. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court without any reason has preponed the date and voluntarily the advocate appeared on behalf of the non-applicants nos.1 and 2 and thereby the injunction order has been granted and obtained. This injunction order is being abused and in the garb of this, the applicant-plaintiff wants to dispossess the defendant to whom no notice was served for date 19.2.2009 (it is pointed out that inadvertently the wrong date has been mentioned as 21.2.2009 in place of 19.2.2009 in the order sheet). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since then the injunction order is in fore and the trial court has not decided the injunction application. The order, which has been passed by the trial court has been passed only as per the undertaking given by the non-applicants nos.1 and 2 and looking to the totality of the facts of the case, I do not find any ground for transfer of the civil original suit from one court to another court on any of the grounds raised by the applicant. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. 3 However, the trial court is requested to decide the injunction application expeditiously. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-