High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks intervention in respect of an order dated 9 March, 2022 passed by the learned District Judge under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking transfer of CS 7733/2016 from the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, where it is presently pending, to another Court.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 15 September, 2021, the learned ASJ dismissed a review application filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation, despite the Supreme Court having, by its orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition extended limitation during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. He submitted that he had to approach this Court to get the order set aside.
It was submitted that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ought to have rectified the earlier order dated 9 December, 2021 instead of merely contenting himself by taking the said application on record. Till such rectification is done, he submitted that the erroneous recital in the order dated 9 December, 2021 would continue to remain part of the record and would prejudice him in future proceedings.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that a request for transfer of a case from a Court before which it is pending to another Court, without justified reasons, practically amounts to an abuse of process, as it would tantamount to forum shopping. The three instances which have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, and on the basis of which he seeks to support his allegation of bias, by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge against him, do not, by the farthest stretch of imagination, make out any such case.
HC stated that it is always open to a party to file a proceeding before a court, and no Court can refuse to take an application, duly filed, on record. No error, whatsoever, can be said to exist in the decision of the learned trial court to take the application of the respondent under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act on record.
HC observed that Prima facie, this petition is an abuse of process of court. The petitioner has apparently no genuine bonafide case of bias against the learned ASCJ. A case of bias is being sought to be built up merely because the proceedings are not progressing as the petitioner would have them progress. Though the standard of bias is one of apprehension, rather than of proof, the apprehension has to be real; not merely chimerical or fanciful, or a method to somehow try one’s luck before another Court.
HC stated that allegations of bias against a judicial officer are not to be likely made. Even issuance of notice on such an application has serious deleterious repercussions for the judicial officer concerned. Every judicial officer is expected to act without fear or favour, affection or ill will. That is the solemn oath which every judicial officer subscribes to, at the time of entering into his office. If a request for transfer such as this, alleging, without a scintilla of material, bias on the part of the judicial officer, is to be entertained, this Court is constrained to observe that it would be impossible for judicial officers to function dispassionately or discharge their duties without fear or favour.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “ordinarily, this court refrains from imposing costs on parties who prosecute their cases in person. This case, however, is an extreme example of abuse of process. It seeks, in a manner completely contrary to the law, to interfere with pending proceedings and also seeks to throw a cloud on the integrity of a judicial officer without any material whatsoever.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Ankur Mutreja v. Aviation Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.
Case Details: CM(M) 236/2022& CM No.13051/2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
