Rajdei Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow and Another

Court No. - 8

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 241 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajdei Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Tewari,Rina Pandey,Sanjay Shanker Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Jitendra Maurya,Shiv Poojan Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Shiv Poojan Maurya, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 24 C.P.C. seeking transfer of Regular Suit No. 259 of 2018 (Rajdei Vs. Ram Chandra Verma) pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambedkar Nagar to some other district.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a widow aged about 75 years and her husband died in the year 2018 leaving behind the petitioner and four daughters.

¶9

It is further stated that the respondent no. 2 is a distant relative and is a practicing lawyer in the District Court of Ambedkar Nagar. The respondent no.2 is alleged to have prepared a forged will of late Narendra Dev (husband of the petitioner) and is misusing the aforesaid will. He has initiated proceedings for getting a mutation done in his name.

¶10

The petitioner has, though, challenged the said order of mutation before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar. Certain proceedings were initiated for transferring the revenue court cases and in pursuance of the order passed the proceedings have now been transferred from the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Akbapur to Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tanda in District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶11

It is further stated that similarly, the petitioner in order to protect her rights had instituted Regular Suit No. 259 of 2018 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambedkar Nagar on 21.03.2018, however, on the influence exerted by the respondent no. 2, the matter could not be effectively listed,

¶12

inasmuch as, on each date of listing, the respondent no. 2 used to get a resolution passed by the local Bar Association stating that the members of the Bar will abstain from judicial work. An attempt was made by the petitioner to get the respondent no. 2 personally served but because of his status as a lawyer in the District Court, he could not be served and he had to be served through publication and he put in appearance only on 25.03.2022 in a suit instituted in the year 2018 and this clearly indicates the manner in which the proceedings have been misused by the respondent no. 2.

¶13

It has also been pointed out that the order sheets have been maneuvered at the instance of the respondent no. 2 and many of them have not even been signed. The respondent no. 2 has political affiliations and he uses his influence in the District Court also flaunting that he is a close relative of an Ex-Minister and present Member of Parliament. In such circumstances, the petitioner is unable to contest the proceedings effectively and it would be appropriate if the proceedings can be transferred to some other District.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that allegations made in the application are concocted and a deliberate attempt is being made to delay the proceedings by the petitioner herself and the instant application for transfer is another way of getting the proceedings delayed, however, he submits that in case if any order for transfer is to be made, at least the proceedings may be expedited as the respondent no. 2 is being harassed at the behest of the petitioner.

¶15

The record indicates that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2024 has called for the records, however, the same was not available, hence, lately, the Court on 04.04.2025 passed an order in pursuance whereof the record of the proceedings have been placed before the Court.

¶16

Having perused the record of Regular Suit No. 259 of 2018 which has been placed before this Court and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court refrains from making any observations, as that may prejudice the case of either of the parties, however, suffice to state that from a perusal of the record of the R.S. No. 259 of 2018, there are certain rather several order sheets which have not been signed. Certain order sheets relating to 06.03.2023, 18.04.2023, 28.04.2023 and 05.05.2023 indicate that perhaps the order sheets have not been appropriately drawn.

¶17

The record further indicates that in absence of the plaintiff (the petitioner herein), the opportunity to lead evidence of the

¶18

petitioner was closed, however, later an application came to be filed which was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 500/- but what is surprising to note that this order allowing the application was passed on 11.11.2024 and the next date fixed was 07.01.2025 i.e. almost after two months. Once again, when the matter was listed on 07.01.2025, the next date fixed was 05.02.2025 and thereafter on 05.02.2025 it was fixed for 05.03.2025. It appears that the dates are being fixed after about a month by the court concerned especially when the case is being fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff-witnesses.

¶19

This Court may not like to express or make any further observations regarding the manner in which the proceedings are being conducted, however, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that it will be appropriate if the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 259 of 2018 are transferred from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Court Ambedkar Nagar to the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sultanpur. The transferee Court shall forthwith transmit the records of Regular Suit No. 259 of 2018 to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sultanpur where upon receipt of the record along with the copy of this order, the Transfree Court shall attempt to conclude the trial most expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Any party who attempts to misuse the liberty shall be put to heavy costs.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed . Costs are made easy.

¶21

The original record of the Case bearing Regular Suit No. 259 of 2018 shall be remitted to the Court concerned to be transferred in terms of this order forthwith.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Asheesh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajdei v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdei v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Aftek Devlopers Pvt. Ltd., Lko. Thru. Authorized Representative, Mohd. Shakir Vs Trilochan Singh

U.P. Lab Technician Association Lko and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education Lko and 4 Others

Shafali Singh Thru Her Attorney Dr. Sanjay Singh Vs Vivek Chauhan

Apoorva Srivastava Vs Rahul Puri

Shafali Singh Thru Her Attorney Dr. Sanjay Singh vs Vivek Chauhan