Back
ALOK MATHUR
Jayendra Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar Chaudhary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer application details and background. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. opposition to transfer application. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's review of transfer application. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. principles for transferring cases per apex court. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. rejection of transfer request; court's directive. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of revision. (Para 14 , 15) |
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
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.
A transfer of case under Section 24 requires substantial evidence of bias or a denial of justice; mere apprehension is inadequate.
Allegations of bias require substantial evidence to justify the transfer of civil suits; mere apprehension of bias is insufficient, maintaining the integrity of judicial officers is paramount.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the motive and underlying object of seeking transfer, the lack of substantial evidence supporting allegations of bias and preju....
Allegations of bias against a Presiding Officer must be substantiated with specific evidence; mere suspicion is insufficient to justify a transfer of case.
The assurance of a fair trial requires substantial grounds for transfer, as mere apprehension of bias is insufficient to justify moving a case.
Transfer of cases requires reasonable grounds for bias; mere apprehension is insufficient without substantiation.
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
