Dismissed

Devendrakumar Mangilal Jain, through His Legal Guardian Jitendra Kumar Jain v. Shri N. Govindraj (Since Deceased), through His Legal Heirs Smt. Sushila Govindraj Reddy and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2013MCA/14/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed an application under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of a pending obstructionist notice proceeding to another judge. The Court held there was no merit as no bias or prejudice was demonstrated.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Obstructionist Notice No.9 of 2007 to another judge in the same Court was denied.

Devendrakumar Mangilal Jain, through His Legal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

MCA-14-13.sxw

¶2

Dixit

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2013

¶5

Devendrakumar Mangilal, Thru' Legal Guardian Jitendra Kumar Jain … Applicant V/s. N. Govindraj, (since deceased), Thru' Sushila Govindraj Reddy & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rajendra G. Megh for the Applicant.

¶7

None for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶9

DATE : 23RD JANUARY, 2013.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This Miscellaneous Civil Application was mentioned in the morning session and it is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶12

The request is that the Obstructionist Notice No.9 of 2007, which is pending before 33^rd Court of Small Causes at Mumbai (Bandra Bench), be transferred to some other Judge in the same Court either at Bandra or Mumbai.

¶13

From the record it appears that the Obstructionist Notice is of the year 2007 and taken out in a Suit which was filed in the year 1985. Being an old matter, the learned Judge may have decided not to grant any adjournment and accommodate the Applicant further. Beyond short adjournments and accommodation, I do not find that the learned Judge has done anything which

¶14

1/2

¶15

MCA-14-13.sxw

¶16

will give reasonable apprehension to the Applicant of the Presiding Officer being biased or prejudiced against him. In such circumstances and when I have no doubt in my mind that if the Applicant seeks a reasonable accommodation and points out genuine and bonafide difficulty, the trial Court will consider his request, if any, made for adjournment on 24^th January, 2013.

¶17

Needless to state that in the garb of this order, the Applicant should not seek any accommodation as of right. Further, this order does not mean that this Court has interfered in any manner with the discretion of the learned Judge to proceed with the matter or refuse any accommodation or adjournments.

¶18

Keeping open all options and finding that there is no merit in this Miscellaneous Civil Application, the same is dismissed.

¶19

2/2

Devendrakumar Mangilal Jain, through His Legal Guardian Jitendra Kumar Jain v. Shri N. Govindraj (Since Deceased), through His Legal Heirs Smt. Sushila Govindraj Reddy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendrakumar Mangilal Jain, through His Legal Guardian Jitendra Kumar Jain v. Shri N. Govindraj (Since Deceased), through His Legal Heirs Smt. Sushila Govindraj Reddy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Akhtar Ali Chaudhary Vs Kennel Furtado and Ors.

Hasmukh Lallubhai Rathod and Anr. Vs the Sonawala Company Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Union of India through the General Manager Western Railway and Ors. Vs Bandra Gas Service and Anr.

Masood Ahmed Siddiqui Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Masood Ahmed Siddiqui Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Narendra B. Mantri Vs Atul Vithaldas Zaveri (Decd.) - Bharti Wd/O. Atul Zaveri and Ors.