CW 5109/08 -Smt. Santosh Soni Vs. Laxman Singh Tak - Judgment dt.18.8.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.5109/2008 Smt. Santosh Soni Vs. Laxman Singh Tak. Date of order : 18th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Moti Singh for the petitioner. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.10.2007 whereby the learned Trial Court refused the opportunity of cross-examination to the defendant as earlier on two occasions such opportunity was granted imposing cost of Rs.1,000/- on each occasion against the defendant. When on the second time such opportunity was refused, the defendant filed an application for transfer of proceedings under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and such proceedings came to be transferred by the order dated 28.1.2008 by the learned District Judge. The said order has been produced before this Court for perusal today as directed by the earlier order dated 30.7.2008. The Court has perused the transfer order. 3. The said transfer order discloses that on 24.8.2007 the Advocate of the defendant Mr. Sanjay Gupta though being present in the Court did not attend the proceedings and at 4 PM sent his proxy counsel to the court to seek time on the alleged ground that his maternal grand mother had suffered some fracture. On the next date on 17.9.2007 the said counsel again made an excuse that on account of some social meeting, he had to remain out of station at Mumbai. CW 5109/08 -Smt. Santosh Soni Vs. Laxman Singh Tak - Judgment dt.18.8.08 2/2 According to the plaintiff's reply to the application under Section 24, both these excuses were wrong and the counsel was present in Court, still he did not attend the proceedings and therefore, opportunity was granted subject to payment of cost. When on 3rd occasion such opportunity was refused on 25.10.2007, the defendant filed aforesaid transfer application which was allowed by the learned District Judge by order dated 28.9.2008. 4. Having heard learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned orders, this Court is surprised at the attitude of the defendant, who appears to be out to abuse of process of Court in the aforesaid manner. The learned District Judge also transferred the proceedings unfortunately without assigning any reason for such transfer. The parties are not expected to express their lack of faith in the Court and Presiding Offices for such flimsy reasons and the learned District Judge ought not to have transferred these proceedings from said Presiding Officer. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned District Judge dated 28.1.2008 transferring these proceedings is also quashed and the proceedings are directed to be transferred back to the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Jodhpur. 6. This writ petition is also dismissed and the order dated 25.10.2007 is upheld. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.2 babulal/-