IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 858 of 2009 Sri Ajmer Singh S/o late Sri Pratap Singh, R/o Kohinoor Kothi, Clement Town, District-Dehradun. ……. Petitioner Versus Sri Shamsher Singh S/o late Sri Pratap Singh, R/o 10/04, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun, District – Dehradun. …….. Respondent …………………………. Date: June 12, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought mainly the following relief:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned interim order dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge on the transfer application No.284/2009 filed by the respondent in Civil Appeal No.52 of 2007, Ajmer Singh versus Shamsher Singh. (ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction, directing the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun to expedite and conclude the Civil Appeal No.52 of 2007, Ajmer Singh versus Shamsher Singh pending in the Court of learned ADJ/FTC-V, Dehradun as early as possible. 2 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun which was dismissed on 30.10.2007. Aggrieved by the order of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) preferred appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2007. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondent is lingering on the appeal and sought adjournments on many dates fixed for hearing in the appeal. The copy of ordersheet of Civil Appeal No.52 of 2007 has been annexed as Annexure No.-6 to the writ petition to prove this fact. Argument in the appeal was heard by the appellate court exparte and judgment was reserved. Opportunity was given to respondent to adduce his argument before the delivery of judgment. 4. The respondent has moved an application under Sec. 24 C.P.C. before the District Judge for transfer of Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2007, which was registered as Transfer Misc.No.284/2009. The learned District Judge issued notice to the petitioner/appellant inviting objection and stayed the further proceedings in the said appeal. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order 19.05.2009 passed on Transfer Misc. No.284 of 2009, Shamsher Singh versus Ajmer Singh. 5. I have perused the impugned order. It reveals from the order that notice was issued to file objection against the transfer application. The Opp.party (petitioner herein) instead of filing objection, preferred the present writ petition. The application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. moved by the applicant (respondent herein) is to be decided by the District Judge and the petitioner has full opportunity to file objection against the said application. The learned District Judge, as per provision of Section 24 C.P.C. is competent to decide the application and to transfer the case if satisfied from the grounds raised in the application. The only grievance of the petitioner is that further proceedings in Civil 3 Appeal No.52 of 2007 have been stayed by the District Judge and the appeal is pending for disposal since long time. I find no error in the order dated 19.05.2009 passed by the learned District Judge. 6. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. However, it is directed that the learned District Judge shall avoid unnecessary adjournment in the case and shall decide the application (Transfer Misc. No.284/2009) moved under Section 24 C.P.C. preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. (Stay Application No.4675/2009 stands rejected accordingly.) (B.S. Verma, J.) 12.06.2009 P.Singh