Bombay High Court
Manohar S/O Sampatrao Naik vs Manoj Madhukarrao Kadu And Others on 7 August, 2017
Bench: S.C. Gupte
wp4749.17.J.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4749 OF 2017
Manohar S/o Sampatrao Naik,
Aged about 79 years, Occup-Retired,
R/o-Rukhmini Nagar (Naik Wada),
Amravati, Tah & Dist-Amravati. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Manoj Madhukarrao Kadu,
Aged about 28 years, Occup-Cultivator,
R/o-Walki, Tah & Dist-Amravati.
2] Sanjay S/o Pralhadrao Jawanjal,
Aged abut 38 years, Occup-Cultivator,
R/o-Tidke's Bunglow, Vijay Colony,
Amravati, Tah & Dist-Amravati.
3] Dayaben W/o Amrutlal Sanghwi,
Aged about 65 years, Occup-Household,
4] Naveen S/o Amrutlal Sanghwi,
Aged about 44 years, Occup-Service,
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are R/o-Shiwaji
Apartment, Badnera Road, Amravati,
Tah & District - Amravati.
5] Ashok S/o Amrutlal Sanghwi,
Aged about 41 years, Occup-Service,
R/o-Ravinagar, Amravati,
Tah & Dist-Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 01:53:37 :::
wp4749.17.J.odt 2/5
6] Jayantkumar S/o Sampatrao Naik,
(Now Dead), R/o-Ful Amla,
Tah-Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
District Amravati.
Through L. R's.
6(a)] Suresh Jayantkumar Naik,
Aged about 55 years, Occup-Cultivator,
6(b)] Ravindra Jayantkumar Naik,
Aged about 53 years.
6(c)] Sau. Aruna Wd/o Jayantkumar Naik,
Aged about 69 years.
All 6(a), 6(b), 69c) are R/o-Akoli,
Near Primary School, Akoli (Naikwada)
Tah and Dist-Amravati.
7] Ravindra S/o Madhukar Naik.
Aged about 32 years, Occup-Business,
R/o-Bisen Nagar, Akot Road Naka,
Akola, Tah & Dist-Akola.
8] Piyush S/o Sunil Naik,
Aged about 6 years,
Minor by Guardian mother
Veena W/o Sunil Naik.
9] Veena Wd/o Sunil Naik,
Aged about 30 years, Occup-Household,
Both 8 and 9 are R/o-Shilpkala
Housing Society, Shegaon, Amravati,
Tah & Dist-Amravati.
10(a)] Harshahas Purnaji Wankhede,
Aged about 25 years, Occp-Nil.
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 01:53:37 :::
wp4749.17.J.odt 3/5
10(b)] Pushpahas Purnaji Wankhede,
Aged about 28 years, Occup-Nil.
Both 10(a) & 10(b) are R/o-Shankar
Nagar, Akot Road, Akola,
Tah & Dist - Akola. ...... RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri G. M. Bagade, Advocate for the Petitioner.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S. C. GUPTE, J.
DATE : 7 th
AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2] Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of
counsel for the parties.
3] Writ Petition challenges an order passed by the Principal
District Judge, Amravati on Miscellaneous Civil Application seeking
transfer of the Regular Civil Suit pending before Joint Civil Judge
Senior Division, Amravati (additional charge) to any other Court of
Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati. The application was on the
basis of a suspicion that the Lower Court i.e. Joint Civil Judge
Senior Division (additional charge), was biased and that justice
would not be done in the petitioner's case. The learned Principal
District Judge has rejected the application on the ground that there
was nothing on record to show that the Joint Civil Judge Senior
wp4749.17.J.odt 4/5
Division, Amravati (additional charge) was biased. Even before
this Court, nothing could be pointed out by the petitioner's
advocate which exhibits such bias.
4] The petitioner's case seems to be that in the course of
the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.567 of 2012, the
petitioner/plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.958 of 2015 which
was a suit for declaration and cancellation of a compromise pursis
filed earlier in another Special Civil Suit being Spl. C. S. No.20 of
1973. The plaint in Regular Civil suit No.958 of 2015 was rejected
by the Court. A Civil Appeal challenging that order was pending
before the Appeal Court. In the premises, an application was
moved by the petitioner/plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.567 of
2012 for grant of adjournment till the appeal was disposed of.
Since this application was ignored by the Lower Court in Regular
Civil Suit No.567 of 2012 and the Court was inclined to proceed
with the hearing in Regular Civil Suit No.567 of 2012, the
petitioner/plaintiff claims to have strong and serious apprehension
and fear that justice would not be done to him. There is nothing
to show that his application for adjournment was rejected by the
Lower Court on any ground other than the merits of the
application. On merits, the Court was not inclined to adjourn the
wp4749.17.J.odt 5/5
matter and insisted on proceeding with the hearing. Merely for
that reason, the approach of the Court cannot be termed as a
biased approach. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State and
Anr. ..vs.. Gram Panchayat Village Kalehri, reported in 2016
ALL SCR 1936, in support of his submission. In this judgment, the
Supreme Court has considered Order 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and particularly Rule 5-B thereof, which castes a duty on
the Court in suits filed against the Government or public officers to
assist in arriving at a settlement. This judgment has little to do with
the controversy in the present matter.
05] There is indeed no material on record, as noted by the
learned Principal District Judge in the present case, which exhibits
any bias on the part of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
Amravati, giving rise to any apprehension in the mind of the
petitioner/plaintiff that justice would be denied to him.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The Petition is,
in the premises, dismissed. No order as to the costs.
JUDGE
PBP
