Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kriskant Bhargava vs Bhagwan Sharan Sharma on 5 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9949
1 MP-2072-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2072 of 2025
KRISKANT BHARGAVA
Versus
BHAGWAN SHARAN SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Vineet Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioner, who is judgment debtor before the Executing Court,
challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Principal District Judge,
Gwalior in MJC No.136/2025, whereby his application under Section 24 of
CPC seeking transfer of execution case from the Court of First District
Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior to some other Court, has been rejected.
2. The facts gathered from the record of this case are that the suit for
specific performance, filed by the respondents/decree holders, was decreed
by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.08.2021 passed in First
Appeal No.292/2009. Accordingly, decree holders initiated execution
proceedings which was subject matter of Execution Case No.12/2021. In the
said execution case, the sale-deed was executed in favour of decree holders
and, therefore, the Executing Court closed the proceedings vide order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9949
2 MP-2072-2025
16.09.2022. Since the possession of the property was not delivered to the
decree holders, they challenged the order dated 16.09.2022 before this Court.
This Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in M.P. No.2325/2024 set
aside the order and restored the execution proceedings to its original number
with direction to the Executing Court to conclude the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. It is also
observed in the said order that the judgment debtor is at liberty to raise all
plausible objections before the Executing Court, which shall be decided in
accordance with law.
3 . The decree holders then placed the order of this Court before the
Executing Court on 19.12.2024. The Executing Court accordingly, restored
the execution case to its original number and fixed the case for 04.02.2025
for appearance of the parties. The order-sheets of the execution case have
been filed along with the petition, which shows that on 11.01.2025 Mr. G.K.
Chaturvedi - Advocate appeared and filed memo on behalf of judgment
debtor and sought time to file Vakalatnama. The case was accordingly fixed
for 04.02.2025. The order-sheet of 04.02.2025 shows that Mr. Sohan Lal
Sahu - Advocate along with decree holder - Bhagwansharan Sharma
appeared. Mr. G.K. Chaturvedi - Advocate appeared on behalf of judgment
debtor and filed his Vakalatnama. The order-sheet further shows that the
documents were supplied to the decree holders and he was directed to deliver
possession of the suit property in compliance of the decree. The decree
holders were given liberty to submit Talwana for issuance of the possession
warrant. The case was than fixed for 20.02.2025. On 20.02.2025, the order-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9949
3 MP-2072-2025
sheet shows that the parties to the execution proceedings were represented
through their respective counsel. On behalf of judgment debtor, it was stated
that he has received the documents on that day itself and he sought time to
submit his objection. Time was accordingly, granted and the case was
adjourned to 22.03.2025.
4 . The judgment debtor thereafter filed a complaint or or about
19.03.2025 making certain allegations with regard to the procedure adopted
by the Presiding Officer of the Execution Court. It is alleged that even
though the Presiding Officer was on leave on 04.02.2025, still the order-
sheet was written and the possession warrant was issued. On this ground, the
judgment debtor says that Presiding Officer was influenced by the decree
holders and is proceeding fast in the execution case.
5 . It appears that when the complaint was presented before the
Principal District Judge, the matter came to the knowledge of Presiding
Officer of the Executing Court. The matter was accordingly placed before
her on 22.03.2025. Even though, the order-sheet of the said date are not
available on record, the facts narrated in the impugned order, shows that on
coming to know, the Presiding Officer made the order, dated 04.02.2025,
ineffective and also sought explanation from the court reader. The matter was
kept for 2:30 awaiting appearance of counsel for the judgment debtor. When
nobody appeared on 2:30, the matter was again placed for 4:30 awaiting
presence of judgment debtor. On 4:30, Mr. Vineet Saxena appeared on his
behalf and sought time. To this, learned Presiding Officer has observed in the
order-sheet that as per the order of High Court, the proceedings are required
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9949
4 MP-2072-2025
to be concluded expeditiously and the judgment debtor should not delay the
proceedings.
6 . The main thrust of applicant's counsel is that even though the
Presiding Officer was on leave on 04.02.2025, the order sheet was written
directing issuance of warrant of possession. According to applicant's
counsel, this shows the biased attitude of Presiding Officer against the
judgment and debtor. In this regard, as per the allegation made in complaint
by judgment debtor, the order-sheet dated 04.02.2025 was written by the
court reader in absence of Presiding Officer. Thus, it could not be said that
Presiding Officer had any bias against the judgment debtor. Further, as
explained by the Presiding Officer in the order-sheet dated 22.03.2025, the
sign on the order-sheet dated 04.02.2025 was taken along with other papers.
When the matter was brought to her notice, she immediately made order-
sheet dated 04.02.2025 ineffective and has called for explanation from court
reader.
7 . The judgment debtor has tried to take benefit of order-sheet dated
04.02.2025 while seeking transfer of case. However, he has failed to point
out any reason as to why the Presiding Officer of executing court would be
biased against him. Merely because some order-sheet was written
incorrectly, no malafide intention can be attributed towards Presiding
Officer. Further merely because, Presiding Officer is expediting the
execution proceedings, it cannot be said that same is for giving any favour to
the decree holders.
8. Needless to mention here that suit was filed in the year 2009. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9949
5 MP-2072-2025
judgment and decree was passed by this Court on 11.08.2021. Further, this
Court in the order dated 02.12.2024 has directed for conclusion of execution
proceedings within a period of six months. Thus, if the Presiding Officer has
tried to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, the same cannot be said to
be with any malafide intention.
9 . This Court in the case of Sudarshan Jain vs. Deep Chand Jain
reported in AIR 2006 M.P. 6 has discussed the law with regard to exercise of
power under Section 24 of CPC when allegations are made against the
Presiding Officer of the Court. This court held in para 13 as under:
"13. .... It is well settled in law, allegations regarding mala fide or
bias are easy to make but difficult to prove. Making allegations
against judicial officer is a serious affair. Faith in the adjudicating
authority is sine qua non in the justice dispensation system. The
tenor of the petition clearly indicates that the application had been
filed making such a casual and nebulous allegation against the
presiding officer which is not only undesirable. The petitioner
being well aware of things has not filed the affidavit. Apart from
that, allegations also, as has been stated, are quite vague. This
kind of petition is not to be given credence in the absence of
proper proof as the same would bound to develop a tendency and a
proclivity to file petitions with vague allegations and seek transfer
of the case. That is neither the intendment nor the purpose of
Section 24 of the CPC. Spacious and mercurial submission of Mr.
Samaiya, no affidavit was necessary and the petitioner has lost
faith on the learned trial Judge is noted to be rejected as the
requirement of law is that apprehension must be reasonable,
sanguine and genuine. It cannot be in the realm of imagination."
10. Again, the issue was considered by Gujarat High Court in the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9949
6 MP-2072-2025
of Rajkot Cancer Society vs. Municipal Corporation, Rajkot reported in AIR
1988 Guj. 63 and it has held thus:
"4. It must be stated that neither of the possible grounds urged by
Mr. Tanna is convincing. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever
for transferring the case from one Court to another. It must be
borne in mind that transfer of a case from one Court to another is a
pretty serious matter because it casts indirectly doubt on the
integrity or competence of the Judge from whom the matter is
transferred. This should not be done without a proper and
sufficient cause. If there are good and sufficient reasons for
transferring a case from one Court to another, they must be clearly
set out. Mere presumptions or possible apprehension could not and
should not be the basis of transferring a case from one Court to
another. Only in very special circumstances, it may become
necessary to transfer a case from one Court to another. Such a
power of transfer of a case from one Court to another has to be
exercised with due care and caution bearing in mind that there
should be no unnecessary, improper or unjustifiable stigma or slur
on the Court from which the case is transferred. Hence, the
submission of Mr. Raval deserves to be upheld. The order of the
learned Assistant Judge with regard to transferring the case from
the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot, to the Court of
1st Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot, is set aside. The matter will be
heard by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot, before whom the
matter was pending before transfer. Rule made absolute. In the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
11. Considering the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court,
accept the unfounded apprehensions in the mind of judgment debtor, there is
no material to order of transfer of case from the files of learned Executing
Court. The impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Gwalior,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9949
7 MP-2072-2025
therefore, cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. The petition is found to
be without any substance and same is accordingly, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
