Allahabad High Court
Bachchh Raj Tripathi And 3 Others vs Govardhan And 3 Others on 7 January, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:943
Court No. - 19
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 73 of 2024
Revisionist :- Bachchh Raj Tripathi And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- Govardhan And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sharvan Kumar Pandey,Mohan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for revisionists and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties 2 to 4 stand dispensed with.
2. Civil Revision under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908(hereinafter referred to as the Code) for setting aside order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Case No.48 of 2024 has been filed whereby application preferred by Revisionists/Plaintiffs under Section 24 of the Code for transfer of Regular Suit No.272 of 2013 has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for revisionists submits that by means of impugned order, Transfer Application has been rejected without considering the grounds raised in the Application and only on the aspect of delay in disposal of suit. It is submitted that the entire pleadings vis a vis evidence of Revisionists and grounds raised in the Transfer Application have not been properly appreciated.
4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 on the basis of instructions submits that although he does not have any objection to suit proceedings being transferred but submits that no cogent grounds have been indicated in the Transfer Application for seeking such transfer. It is submitted that even otherwise the suit proceedings are pending for the past 11 years and the only concern of opposite party no.1 is expeditious disposal of suit proceedings.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the Application for Transfer filed by the revisionists/plaintiffs under Section 24 of the Code, the grounds for seeking transfer are indicated in paragraph-3 thereof to the effect that the defendants have threatened the plaintiffs to the effect that they have been given an assurance that the suit would be dismissed. It has therefore been stated that in view of such a threat being extended by defendants, Transfer Application has been filed.
6. The aspect pertaining to transfer or otherwise of suit proceedings have been adjudicated upon by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Prakash v. District Judge Ballia and others, reported in 2015 (1) ARC 103 in the following manner:-
"6. The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 24 C.P.C., the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved proved/ substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer. In Smt. Sudha Sharma (supra) the Court observed that it is the duty of learned counsel to draft the application and made allegations with utmost care and caution. Hon'ble B.M. Lal, J. (as His Lordship then was), said:
"9. ......a foremost duty casts upon the counsel concerned while drafting and making allegations in the transfer petition against the Judge concerned with utmost care and caution, particularly in making wild allegations against the Presiding Judge. But, it appears that now-a-days it has become common feature to make allegations against the Court Presiding Judge. The counsel should realise that they are also officers of the Court. Introducing fanciful and imaginary allegations as grounds for transfer and harbouring apprehension such grounds that fair and impartial justice would not be done should always be deprecated.
10. Nonetheless, it is also important for all those who are engaged in the task of administering justice to remember that it is incumbent on them to create and maintain such confidence and atmosphere by giving every litigant an assurance by their judicial conduct that fair and impartial justice will be imparted. It is necessary to create such a confidence in the mind of the litigants so that their faith may not be shaken in Courts of law."
7. Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one case to another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a case, not otherwise. (Rajkot Cancer Society vs. Municipal Corporation, Rajkot, AIR 1988 Gujarat 63; Pasupala Fakruddin and Anr. vs. Jamia Masque and Anr., AIR 2003 AP 448; and, Nandini Chatterjee vs. Arup Hari Chatterjee, AIR 2001 Culcutta 26).
8. Where a transfer is sought making allegations regarding integrity or influence etc. in respect of the Presiding Officer of the Court, this Court has to be very careful before passing any order of transfer.
9. In the matters where reckless false allegations are attempted to be made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the approach of Court must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to be true on their face, in the entirety of circumstances, can be believed to be correct, by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. If the allegations are apparently false, strict approach is the call of the day so as to maintain not only discipline in the courts of law but also to protect judicial officers and maintain their self esteem, confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice."
7. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is quite evident that no cogent reason has been indicated in the Application seeking transfer of suit proceedings. No allegation either has been imputed against Judicial Officer concerned.
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the Civil Revision, which is accordingly dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.
9. In view of fact that the suit proceedings are pending consideration for the past eleven years and an Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is also pending before the court concerned, it is directed that aforesaid Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code shall be adjudicated upon expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is brought on record of proceedings, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
10. The court concerned shall make all endeavours to decide aforesaid proceedings expeditiously without granting undue adjournments to either party.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
kvg/-
