Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
Heard Sri. Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rishi Chadha, learned counsel for the respondent.
One of the orders assailed in this writ petition is the order dated 22.12.2013 passed on the transfer application No. 259 of 2013.
It appears that the respondent filed a suit of the valuation of Rs. 38,565 before the Civil Judge exercising powers of the Small Causes Court. The suit was decreed but in revision the decree was set aside and the matter was remanded as the revisional court was of the opinion that the Civil Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide a suit of valuation exceeding Rs. 25,000/- as Small Cause Court.
On the suit being returned to the court of first instance, respondent filed application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code before the District Judge for the transfer of the suit to the appropriate court of the Additional District Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit as Judge Small Causes Court. The said application was placed on Sunday before the Lok Adalat. The District Judge probably exercising powers of the Lok Adalat by the impugned order dated 22.12.2013 has ordered for the transfer of the suit to the court of IInd Additional District Judge.
A bare perusal of the above order reveals that it has been passed on 22.12.2013 which happened to be a Sunday. Secondly, it has been passed by the District Judge and not by any Lok Adalat.
A transfer application under Section 24 C.P.C requires a judicial order. It is settled law that the courts ordinarily do not discharge judicial functions on Sunday.
In State of U.P v. Ist A.D.J 2014 (7) ADJ 107, I have already held that Sunday is not a day for judicial or legal proceedings and as of practice ordinarily no judicial work is done on Sundays.
In view of above, the order dated 22.12.2013 is unsustainable in law.
In the alternative if the said order is said to have been passed by the District Judge exercising powers of the Lok Adalat then a transfer application cannot be placed before the Lok Adalat for decision.
Section 20 of The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 provides that the Lok Adalat shall take cognizance of matters referred to under Section 19(5) of the Act, if the parties agree to it or one of the parties thereof makes an application for settlement of dispute by lok Adalat or where the court is satisfied that the matter is appropriate to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.
There is nothing on record which may show fulfillment of either of the above three conditions. There is no consent or any application of the parties to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. The court has not recorded its satisfaction that the matter is appropriate or settlement by Lok Adalat.
Ordinarily, interlocutory applications, transfer applications or misc. applications for setting aside ex parte decree restoration or substitution etc. are not placed before the Lok Adalat and generally matrimonial disputes and claim petitions etc. are referred for settlement to the Lok Adalat.
The transfer application is normally not cognizable by Lok Adalat. Thus, in this view of the matter also the order dated 22.12.2013 is without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the order dated 22.12.2013 is quashed and the District Judge concerned is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the transfer application of the respondent afresh in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed as above.