Back
2011 Supreme(All) 141
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shabihul Hasnain, J.
Durga Prasad -Appellant
Versus
Shiv Naresh and Others -Respondent
C.M.C. No. 5 of 2011
Decided On : 18-01-2011
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mohd. Arif Khan.
Counsel for the Opp. Parties : Sushil Kumar Singh.
The limitations of remedies available under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and the need for a balanced approach in entertaining transfer applications based on allegations against judicial officers.
Headnote:
Transfer Application - Allegations against Judicial Officer - Section 24 of the C.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code - The court discussed the application for transfer of a case based on allegations against the judicial officer under Section 24 of the C.P.C. The court analyzed the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in entertaining transfer applications and the limitations of the remedies available under Section 24 of the C.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the transfer of a civil appeal based on allegations of bias against the Addl. District Judge, which was rejected by the District Judge. The petitioner then approached the High Court without challenging the District Judge's order, leading to the present case before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for transfer was not maintainable and had come before the court based on long-standing practice rather than any specific law. The court rejected the petition/application on this ground.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the transfer application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and the procedural irregularities in approaching the High Court without challenging the District Judge's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limitations of remedies available under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and the need for a balanced approach in entertaining transfer applications based on allegations against judicial officers.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petition/application as not maintainable, without imposing any costs.
Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties, as a Caveater.
2. The petitioner has prayed that Regular Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2005, Shiv Naresh and others v. Durga Prasad, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge. Court No. 5, Barabanki, may be transferred to some other Court in the judgeship of district Barabanki.
3. Learned District Judge has rejected the application for transfer of Regular Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2005. from the Court of Addl. District Judge, Court No. 5. The said application was moved, by the petitioner on 16.11.2010, stating therein that he had heard one Matan Dubey talking to Ram Prakash, the following conversation :
"Suresh Kumar Pandey Chaprasi ne mujhe bheja hai aur kaha hai ki maen aap se yeh batla doon ki Judge Sahab tumhare mukadman appeal mein tumhare muvafik faisala kar dene par rajee ho gaye hain chunache turn fauran agrim peshi 16.11.2010 se pahle poora intjaam kar ke aa jao aur Suresh Kumar Pandey ke dwara Judge sahab se mulakat kar lo. Agar 16.11.2010 se pahle turn intezaam na kar pao to bhi 16.11.2010 ko zaroor bil zaroor aao aur Judge sahab se chaprasi ke marfat mulakat kar lo aur sab kuch samajh boojh lo."
On the basis of this conversation, apprehension arose in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get justice in Court No. 5 of the Addl. District Judge, Barabanki, hence he moved the application for transfer of case before the District Judge under Section 24 of the C.P.C. The District Judge has rejected the application, on the ground that while hearing the application, he inquired in the open Court, as to exactly what was the discussion, the applicant could not repeat the same. The Court under Order X, Rule 1, C.P.C. has the power to call the plaintiff. The order of the District Judge is quoted below :
"This, is a transfer application against learned Additional District Judge Court No. 5, Barabanki. Since the discussions made between one Sri Madan and Sri Ram Prakash was quoted therefore, during the course of hearing, I enquired in the open Court as to exactly what was the discussion. The applicant could not repeat the same. Thus, the allegations appears to be baseless. The officer carries a good reputation and perhaps this is the reason why the applicant does not want to get his case decided by him. There is no substance in the transfer application, hence it is rejected."
Sd. District Judge.
The District Judge, in his wisdom, decided that the allegations were baseless and thus, he recorded the finding. He further recorded that the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 5, Barabanki carried a good reputation and also that since the officer was good, perhaps that was the reason for the applicant, to get the matter transferred from his Court. Finding no substance, the District Judge, finally rejected the application.
4. For understanding of the matter, facts of the case are being narrated in nutshell. The petitioner filed, a suit for permanent injunction against one Bachau, now deceased and opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession over the land in dispute. Opposite parties No. 3 to 5, filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations. The trial court, however, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2005. Being aggrieved, opposite parties filed appeal before the District Judge, Barabanki, which was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Court No. 5, Barabanki, which is pending for decision.
As mentioned earlier. It is alleged that during pendency of this appeal, the petitioner heard a conversation, which has taken place between one Matan Dubey (brother-in-law of Ram Milan son of Ram Prakash-opposite party No. 5), and Ram Prakash. Thereupon, he made application before the District Judge, Barabanki, which has been rejected.
5. Learned senior advocate,
