Allegations of bias against a judicial officer should be supported by substantial evidence and not made lightly, and requests for transfer should be based on justified reasons and not tantamount to forum shopping.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks intervention in respect of an order dated 9 CM (M) 236/2022 the March, 2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Karkardooma Courts in M.No.01/2022. M.No.01/2022 was an application preferred by the petitioner, who appeared in person before the trial court and is also appearing in person before this Court, under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking transfer of CS 7733/2016 (Aviation Employees Cooperative House Building Society v. Pushpa Mutreja& Ors.) [The petitioner submits that the cause title is wrongly noted in para 1 of the impugned order], from the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, where it is presently pending, to another Court.

2. To a query from the Court as to the ground on which the petitioner seeks transfer of the matter from the Court before which it is presently pending, Mr. Mutreja submits that the learned ASJ, presently dealing with the matter, is biased against him.

3. Three instances are cited by Mr Mutreja, before me, to substantiate his plea of bias, on the part of the learned ASJ, against him.

4. The first is that, vide order dated 15thSeptember, 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 (C) No.3/2020 (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation) extended limitation during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. He submits that he had to approach this Court to get the order set aside.

5. The second instance of bias, as per Mr. Mutreja's submission, is to be found in the following sentence, figuring in the order dated 9thDecember, 2021, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge:

"The applicant has himself submitted that plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property while referring para 5 of the plaint, thus, the peaceful possession of the suit property has not been refuted by the defendant."

Mr. Mutreja submits that he moved an application before the learned ASCJ for rectification of the aforesaid order dated 9thDecember, 2021, in which he categorically denied having made the submission as recorded hereinabove. By order dated 22ndDecember, 2021, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge noted, qua this application, thus:

"Meanwhile, defendant no. 3submits that he has filed an application under Section 151, 152 and153 of CPC for modification and clarification of some observations of the court made in order dated 09.12.2021. The said application and the prayer of the defendant no. 3 are noted and taken on record."

Mr. Mutreja submits that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ought to have rectified the earlier order dated 9thDecember, 2021 instead of merely contenting himself by taking the said application on record. Till such rectification is done, he submits that the erroneous recital in the order dated 9th December, 2021 would continue to remain part of the record and would prejudice him in future proceedings. This too, submits Mr Mutreja, indicates that the learned ASCJ is biased against him.

6. The third instance of bias, according to Mr. Mutreja, is with respect to an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, preferred by the respondent, to bring on record, in the proceedings, a copy of an undertaking given by Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. Mr. Mutreja submits that the application sought to justify the request to take the said document on record on the basis of a mere averment that the copy had been compared with the original.

He submits that, on 22nd December, 2021, the learned trial court had fixed the application for arguments tomorrow i.e. on 16th March, 2022. He submits that he had requested permission to address arguments on the application but that the learned trial court orally expressed its opinion that he would have no locus standi in the matter and that the application would have to be de