VINEETHA THOMAS v. WG CRD PRAMOD KUMAR TYAGI

Petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.26942/2012, which is pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Mayo Hall, at Bangaluru, C.C.H.No.22. Presently the said suit has been filed by first respondent plaintiff, seeking ejectment of the defendant from the suit property. According to the petitioner, she is the wife of defendant tenant of the suit schedule property and she has been impleaded in the suit and has been contesting the suit. That the said suit was pending before C.C.H.No.20. On 28/10/2016, learned City Civil Judge after hearing learned advocate for plaintiff, recused from the case and requested the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangaluru, to transfer the case to any another court, as the said learned Judge was of the impression that the plaintiff did not have confidence in him. Accordingly, on 30/11/2016, the said suit was -: 3 :- transferred to C.C.H.No.22, since then matter is pending before that court.

2. When the matter stood thus, Misc.No.65/2017 was filed by the petitioner herein under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking withdrawal of the suit on the file of the XIII City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangaluru, at C.C.H.No.22 and to transfer it to any court at City Civil Court Complex, Bengaluru. The said miscellaneous petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 09/08/2017. Being aggrieved by that order, this writ petition has been filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner at length and perused the material on record.

4. It is noted that the petitioner herein has not assailed order dated 30/11/2016 by which, the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, transferred the suit from C.C.H.No.20 to C.C.H.No.22. The plea made by petitioner herein is to transfer the said suit from C.C.H.No.22 to any other court. There is no allegation made against the Presiding Officer of C.C.H.No.22 much -: 4 :- less any serious allegation. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be with regard to recusal of the Presiding Officer in C.C.H.No.20 and thereafter, transfer of the suit to C.C.H.No.22. In that view of the matter, learned Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge was right in dismissing the miscellaneous petition under section 24 of cpc and declining to grant the prayers sought by petitioner herein. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE *mvs