A mere allegation of bias and delay in proceedings is insufficient for transferring a case; substantial evidence is required to demonstrate real apprehension of unfairness.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for revisionist, Shri Lokendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. The revisionist is aggrieved by order dated 16.10.2023 passed by learned District Judge, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 592 of 2023 (Jayendra Prapat Singh v. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary and others) under section 24 of C.P.C. thereby rejecting the application of revisionist for transfer of Civil Suit No. 678 of 2022 (Jayendra Pratap Singh v. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary and others) from the court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow to some other court of competent jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that suit for permanent injunction was filed by the revisionist against the respondents for restraining them to create obstruction in the peaceful possession of the disputed property. Along with suit for permanent injunction an application for temporary injunction was also filed by the revisionist under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., which was duly considered by the court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Malihabad Lucknow and an order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 12.4.2022. Subsequently, the opposite parties/defendants put in appearance and moved an application for vacation of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs-revisionist and the matter is pending at the stage of deciding the application preferred by the opposite parties. Considering the fact that the matter is pending for a substantial period of time, the opposite parties had approached this Court seeking early disposal of their application by means of a Writ Petition bearing No. 2934 of 2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court was of the view that the application is premature but proceeded to direct the court to decide the application filed by the opposite parties on the date fixed or within next six weeks in accordance with law. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the trial court is listing the case regularly and indisputably the hearing is taking place. It is in this fact, an application under section 24 of C.P.C. was moved by the revisionist before the District Judge, Lucknow stating therein that the file of the matter is being heard by the concerned court and the paper book is kept in personal custody of the Presiding Officer and that the plaintiff has been informed through certain sources that the matter would be decided in favour of the defendants/opposite parties.

4. It is on the basis of the aforesaid facts, an application for transfer of the case was moved and on the said application, the comments of the Presiding Officer was also obtained and the District Judge, Lucknow after considering the aforesaid facts, has rejected the application for transfer. The other relevant fact in the present case is that the Presiding Officer, in the meanwhile, was transferred on 28.4.2023 to the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow and after expiry of mere one month, he has been posted back to the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow on 24.5.2023. The District Judge, Lucknow, while rejecting the application, has relied upon the comments received from the Presiding Officer that the delay in disposal of the application C-6 appears to have been due to the transfer of Presiding Officer and, in the meanwhile, it was further considered that the Presiding Officer has passed an ex-parte injunction in favour of the applicant and no case of bias was made out and accordingly the ap