- (1.)This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Chandausi, district Moradabad by which the transfer application of the petitioner has been rejected for transferring the Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2008 (Smt. Krishna v. Vijai Kumar Gupta and others) from the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandausi, district Moradabad to some other Courts. Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing this order has submitted that there was a serious allegation with regard to the demand of bribe. The said allegations should have been considered in the right perspective and the case should have been transferred to some other Courts and in not doing so the learned District Judge has erred in rejecting the transfer application.
(2.)I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.)While rejecting the transfer application it has been recorded that the applicant has been trying hard to delay the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was registered on 10.4.2008 and after the service of notice an amendment was sought in the memo of appeal which was allowed vide order dated 1.7.2008. Thereafter the appeal was fixed in the presence of both the parties for disposal of certain misc. applications 27-C, 29-C, 30-C, and 31-C moved by the applicant himself and objections filed by them 32-C and 34-C for 22nd September, 2008. On 22.9.2008 the applications 27-C, 29-C, 30-C, and 31-C, were directed to be decided at the final hearing of the case by the then Presiding Officer and date was fixed for 20.10.2008 for arguments. From the perusal of the record it reveals that the appellant has sought number of adjournments i.e. on 20.10.2008, 15.4.2009, 27.7.2009, 20.8.2009, 8.9.2009 and 11.9.2009 and on 8.9.2009 the adjournment was allowed as a last opportunity with the cost of Rs. 300/-and subsequent adjournment was allowed on payment of Rs. 500/- on 11.9.2009. Thereafter transfer application has been filed. After recording this finding the transfer application was rejected by the learned District Judge. From perusal of above finding it is apparent that the transfer application has been filed with a view to avoid the hearing of appeal.
In view of that, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, the writ petition is dismissed. However the cost imposed by the Court below is waived. The petitioner is not required to deposit the cost. It is further directed that in case the appeal has not been decided, the same may be decided by the next date fixed or in case it is adjourned for any reason on that date then by the next date fixed which shall not be later than one month from the date fixed.