IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2998 of 2010 1. SRI NATH RAI, 2. UMA SHANKAR RAI, 3. UMA SHANKAR RAI 4. DHARAMDEO RAI 5. BAIJANATH RAI, ALL RESIDENTS OF MAKIMPUR, ITARHI, BUXAR. VERSUS 1. KASHI NATH RAI, MAKIMPUR 2. PHULBASO DEVI, KARANU, ITARHI 3. KAMALA DEVI, JOGA MUSAHIB, GAZIABAD 4. KANTI DEVI, UTTAMPUR, RAJPUR, BUXAR 5. RAM BILASH RAI 6. AWADHESH RAI 7. OM PRAKASH RAI, RESIDENTS OF MAKIMPUR 8. SHANTI DEVI, PANCHOKHAR, GAJIPUR, UP 9. KUNTI DEVI, GAGAURS, DHANSOI, BUXAR 10. RAM DEVA DEVI, WIDOW OF JAGDEO RAI, 11. RAMAVTAR RAI, MAKIMPUR 12. KASHMIRA DEVI, CHUNNI, BUXAR. ----------- 4 20.08.2010. This application has been filed for transfer of T.A.No.23 of 1990 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum- F.T.C.No. V, Buxar to any other court of competent jurisdiction. Petitioners also pray for setting aside order dated 6.7.2010, passed by the District judge, Buxar in Misc.Case no. 27 of 2010 by which his application to transfer the case has already been rejected. Petitioners submit that one Kapildeo Rai (original respondent no.4) of instant Title Appeal died on 11.12.2007 leaving behind three sons and two daughters. When no substitution was made, respondent filed a petition on 22.2.2010 that the Appeal has abated and order should be passed. No order was passed by the court below. Then on 5.3.2010 the appellant filed a rejoinder to the petition praying for exemption U/o 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. and on 9.4.2010 heirs were substituted. Appellant was directed to expunge the name of respondent no.4 substituting his 3 sons and 2 daughters. 17.4.2010 was the date fixed for issuance of notices and the case was to be listed on 1.5.2010. Though notices were shown to have been issued on 21.4.2010 and served on 25.4.2010 itself. Service report shows that it was served on 3 sons 2 only and not upon 2 daughters. Still the appellate court in his order dated 1.5.2010 observed that notice have been served upon all the heirs. This infirmity was pointed out to the learned court as well. It has been stated that the court below fixed the date for hearing on 10.5.2010. The petitioner still prayed for service of notice on remaining heirs which was rejected on 18.5.2010 in arbitrary manner. It is stated that appellate court was unfavorably disposed towards petitioner. The petitioner filed Misc Case no. 27 of 2010 which was also rejected by the District Judge vide order dated 6.7.2010 observing that petitioner could have very well have moved against order, whereby notices were accepted as served, though it was not served on 2 daughters of respondent no.4. Heard the parties. It appears that the learned District judge has passed detailed order dated 6.7.2010 rejecting the application for transfer. The order of District Judge is exhaustive. He has noticed that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by order in respect of service of notice on substituted respondents though it was not served on some of them, he could have moved appropriate application against the same. The title appeal is of the year 1990 and there is direction of this court to dispose of the same expeditiously earlier. In view of the above, I am not inclined to transfer the case from the present to another court. The instant petition is dismissed accordingly. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)