Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1829
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Amit Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Trehan And Others - Respondent
CR No. 4406 of 2018
Decided On : 25-02-2019
Mr. K. S. Chawla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for just and proper grounds for transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the need for exercising discretion judiciously and maintaining confidence in the justice delivery system.
Headnote:
Transfer - Civil Procedure - Section 24, Section 151 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application for transfer under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the need for just and proper grounds for transfer. The court highlighted the importance of exercising discretion judiciously and the requirement for parties to have confidence in the justice delivery system. The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court's broad propositions for transfer, emphasizing the balance of convenience, issues raised by the parties, and the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to transfer two civil suits due to alleged bias and unfair treatment by the trial court judge, citing mental trauma and health concerns. The respondent contested the allegations, stating that adjournments were granted as per circumstances and that the petitioner was delaying the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's allegations of bias and unfair treatment lacked foundation, and the trial court had not discriminated in granting adjournments. However, considering the petitioner's medical condition and the alleged fear of intimidation, the court allowed the transfer solely on the ground of the petitioner's health condition.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of bias, unfair treatment, and discrimination in granting adjournments, as well as the petitioner's medical condition and fear of intimidation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for just and proper grounds for transfer, the importance of exercising discretion judiciously, and the requirement for parties to have confidence in the justice delivery system. The decision to allow the transfer was based solely on the petitioner's medical condition.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed solely on the ground of the petitioner's medical condition, and the suits were directed to be transferred to a different court within the same Sessions Division, with specific conditions for concluding evidence.
Key Points: - The court discussed the application for transfer under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [23000741040001]. - The petitioner sought to transfer two civil suits due to alleged bias and unfair treatment by the trial court judge, citing mental trauma and health concerns [23000741040001]. - The respondent contested the allegations, stating that adjournments were granted as per circumstances and that the petitioner was delaying the case [23000741040001]. - The court found that the petitioner's allegations of bias and unfair treatment lacked foundation [23000741040001]. - The court allowed the transfer solely on the ground of the petitioner's medical condition and alleged fear of intimidation [23000741040001]. - The Supreme Court's broad propositions for transfer emphasize the balance of convenience, issues raised by the parties, and the interest of justice [23000741040001]. - Discretionary power of transfer cannot be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula but must be exercised with due care, caution, and circumspection [23000741040017] (!) . - A mere suspicion by any party would not constitute a valid ground for transfer, and transferring a case is a serious matter that casts doubt on the integrity and competency of the Judge (!) . - The petition was allowed solely on the ground of the petitioner's medical condition, and the suits were directed to be transferred [23000741040026]. - The petitioner was given only two opportunities within a period of one month to conclude his evidence before the new court (!) .
What are the just and proper grounds for transfer of a case under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
What is the importance of exercising discretion judiciously when considering a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
How should a court balance the convenience of parties and the interest of justice when deciding on a transfer application?
JUDGMENT
Amol Rattan Singh, J. - By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned District Judge, S.A.S.Nagar Mohali, dated 10.05.2018 (copy Annexure P-l), by which the petitioners' application for transferring two civil suits in which he is a party, to a different court within Mohali, has been dismissed.
Civil Suit no.1187/2013 is titled as Ajay Kumar v. Amit Kapoor and others and Civil Suit no.1430/2013 is titled as Amit Kapoor v. Ajay Trehan, the petitioner herein being Amit Kapoor. Thus, one suit has been filed by the 1st respondent herein, i.e. Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Trehan against the petitioner and others, and one civil suit has been filed by the petitioner against the 1st respondent herein.
2. Vide his application for transfer before the learned District Judge (copy Annexure P-2), filed invoking jurisdiction under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner had alleged that thelearned Civil Judge seized of the two suits, was being "unduly harsh, biased, unfair and even insulting", thereby causing mental trauma to the petitioner, with "hard pressing treatment" meted out by her.
It is further contended that the petitioner is a heart patient who has a pace marker inserted in his body and that due to no fault of his, he was being subjected to continuous and extreme mental stress by the learned Civil Judge, she allegedly also having discriminated against him, against all norms of equity and justice.
3. Specific allegations have also been made by the petitioner that despite three witnesses having been repeatedly present before that court for the petitioner (on behalf of the petitioner), the trial court had been "generously granting" long adjournments on frivolous grounds on the request of counsel for the opposite party and further, with the Civil Judge having been on leave on 06.10.2017, i.e. one of the dates of hearing of the case before her, she took up the file immediately thereafter on 07.10.2017 and ordered that a last opportunity be granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence.
4. Still further, the petitioner had alleged before the learned District Judge that upon an application for filing a supplementary/additional affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of the petitioners' witness, that application was dismissed, allegedly in a hurry without hearing oral arguments, and a self-contradictory order dated 16.02.2018 was passed by that court (copy Annexure P-13 with the present petition), which order, as per the petitioner, was set aside by this court, on a revision filed.
(The contradiction in the said order is stated to be in the fact that after dismissal of the application for additional evidence by way of anadditional affidavit of witness Punit Sekhri (DW5), one Surinder Kumar was cross-examined, with his cross-examination deferred on the request of the opposite party (i.e. Ajay Kumar) for which purpose another date was granted, as also for examining the remaining DWs, with a last opportunity for concluding the evidence from the present petitioners' side).
5. Allegations were also made in the application before the District Judge that the Civil Judge had made a factually wrong and incorrect observation in an order dated February 20, 2017, dismissing an application for consolidation of the two civil suits; and further more, an application filed by the petitioners' counsel seeking an adjournment on the ground that a certified copy of the order of this court (in the revision petition) had not been received, was also wrongly dismissed, with the petitioners' counsel also having sought an adjournment on 26.03.2018 on the ground that the petitioner was to appear before a Commission of Inquiry presided over by a former Acting Chief Justice of this court, despite which, (it was the petitioners' allegation), that the trial court "unduly compelled for the petitioner's personal presence and then having unduly, harshly and insultingly compelled the petitioner- defendant
