Back
Karnataka High Court
M.V.Ganesh Prasad - Appellant
Versus
M.L.Vasudevamurthy - Respondent
Decided On : 04-19-02
C.R.P. : 2878 of 2001
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 24 - TRANSFER OF SUIT - GROUNDS - REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS - JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE - RESPECT FOR JUDICIAL SYSTEM - AVOIDANCE OF RECKLESS AND IRRESPONSIBLE ALLEGATIONS - DUTY OF COURTS TO EXAMINE ALLEGATIONS OBJECTIVELY AND IMPASSIONATELY - DISMISSAL OF TRANSFER PETITIONS WITH COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a defendant in five suits pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chickmagalur, filed transfer applications under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking transfer of the suits to another court on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias against the Presiding Officer. The District Judge dismissed the applications. The petitioner filed revision petitions challenging the order of the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the apprehension of bias expressed by the petitioner was not a reasonable apprehension and that the learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the transfer applications. The Court further held that it is the duty of the Courts to examine the allegations in support of an application seeking for transfer made under Section 24 CPC objectively, impassionately and in the totality of the circumstances. A disgruntled litigant cannot be allowed to use the provisions of Section 24 CPC as a weapon against the Presiding Officers and immobilise him when his ego is hurt. Applications of such nature should be dealt with appropriately by the higher Courts.
Issues: 1. Whether the apprehension of bias expressed by the petitioner was a reasonable apprehension? 2. Whether the learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the transfer applications? 3. Whether a disgruntled litigant can be allowed to use the provisions of Section 24 CPC as a weapon against the Presiding Officers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The apprehension of bias expressed by the petitioner was not a reasonable apprehension. The petitioner had not been able to provide any material in support of his allegations of bias against the Presiding Officer. 2. The learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the transfer applications. The petitioner had not made out a case for transfer of the suits. 3. A disgruntled litigant cannot be allowed to use the provisions of Section 24 CPC as a weapon against the Presiding Officers. Applications of such nature should be dealt with appropriately by the higher Courts.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petitions with costs of Rs. 2,000/- in each of the petitions to be apportioned equally amongst the respondents.
( 1 ) THESE Civil Revision Petitions are directed against a common order dated 30-6-2001 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Civil Miscellaneous Case Nos. 13, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2000 on his file. The order impugned came to be passed in common on petitions filed under S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the civil Miscellaneous cases referred to above seeking for transfer of the original suits O. S. 12/1992 in C. Misc. No. 13/2000, O. S. 198/1997 in C. Misc. No. 19/2000, O. S. 76/1999 in C. Misc. No. 20/2000, O. S. 176/1997 in C. Misc. No. 21/2000 and O. S. 158/1998 in C. Misc. No. 22/2000 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chickmagalur either to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur or to any other competent Court and by the impugned common order the learned District Judge has dismissed all the Civil Miscellaneous cases rejecting the prayer for transfer. It is against this order the above revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner.
( 2 ) OF the 5 suits pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (senior division), Chickmagalur, O. S. No. 12/1992 had been filed by the State Bank of Mysore against the petitioner and other defendants, petitioner figuring as the 1st defendant for recovery of certain amount due to it by enforcing the mortgage made in its favour. The other 4 suits namely O. S. Nos. 198/97, 76/99, 176/97and 158/98 are suits filed by the present petitioner against the members of his family and in O. S. 198/1997 the purchasers of certain properties which the plaintiff claims to be part and parcel of the joint family property are also impleaded as defendants. In these suits the petitioner plaintiff had sought for relief of declaration to his entitlement to the share of joint family property, for putting him in possession of such share and also for a declaration that certain transactions of sale and gift deeds executed by the parents of the petitioner as invalid and not binding on him and for consequential relief.
( 3 ) THE petitioner plaintiff moved the district and Sessions Court, Chickmagalure by filing Civil Miscellaneous Cases praying for transfer of the said suits on the premise that the remarks and abuses hurled by the Presiding Officer against the petitioner in the course of the proceedings in O. S. No. 12/1992 particularly the conduct and reaction exhibited by the Presiding Officer on 26-7-2000 was very caustic and the learned Presiding Officer has used intemperate language in the course of the proceedings of the suit which caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that if the suits are continued to be tried by the very learned Judge he may not get justice from the Court. The petitioner has also alleged in the petition before the learned District Judge that certain entries in the order sheet maintained in O. S. No. 12/1992 indicates that the Presiding Officer might have adverse to the interest of the petitioner interpolated or made corrections subsequent to the passing of the order on the days mentioned therein which interpolation/correction has affected adversely the interest of the petitioner in the suit and in view of these developments the petitioner complained before the District Judge that he has reasonable apprehension of the said development having caused or likelihood of causing prejudice against the petitioner on the part of the Presiding Officer of the trial Court and as such he is seeking transfer of all the suits from that Court. Such plea and contentions urged by the petitioner did not find favour with learned District Judge and accordingly all the petitions came to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 200/- each to the respondent. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court filing revision petitions under S. 115 of C. P. C. praying for setting aside the impugned orders and for allowing his Civil Miscellaneous cases by transferring the suits to any
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
