IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 6617 of 2025 KHUMAN SINGH RAJPUT Versus VIRENDRA SINGH MEENA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the Petitioner.

ORDER By way of this Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated

17.10.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bhopal whereby the application of the Petitioner under Section 24 of the CPC has been rejected whereby prayer had been made to transfer the suit pending before the XXth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal to some other Court on the allegations that the Petitioner/Plaintiff is not likely to get justice from the said Court looking to the attitude of the Judicial Officer concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had vehemently argued before this Court that looking to the attitude of the Judicial Officer concerned, the Petitioner is not likely to get any justice from the said Court and since serious doubts are raised in the mind of the Petitioner/Plaintiff that he would not get justice from the concerned Court, therefore, the Principal District Judge ought to have exercised his jurisdiction under Section 24 of C.P.C. and ought to have transferred this suit to some other Court of equal jurisdiction.

The Principal District Judge has erroneously rejected the application of the Petitioner which would amount to denial of fair trial to the Petitioner/Plaintiff and denial of justice to the Petitioner/Plaintiff and therefore, interference is sought in the Order passed by the Principal District Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff has particularly pointed out to the manner in which an application under Section 45 of Evidence Act and in the manner which an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. was dealt with by the concerned Court in contending that the concerned Court seems to be predisposed against the Petitioner.

4. Upon considering the assertions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that a Civil Suit has been filed by the Petitioner before the Trial Court for specific performance of Contract and other ancillary reliefs. An application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. was filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the application under Section 45 of Evidence Act was filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 praying for examination of signatures on Ex.P-1 which contains signatures of those defendants but the Court allowed the said application for examination of Ex.P-2 which has signatures of defendants No.1 and 2 and therefore, the Court has over-reached its jurisdiction and allowed the application beyond the prayer made in the said application.

5. It is further contended in the application that the Court forwarded the document to the State Examiner of questioned documents which is a State agency but in such matters which are civil in nature, the Court ought to have appointed a private handwriting expert. It was further contended that another application under Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed by the Plaintiff which was rejected on 25.07.2025 without obtaining reply of the defendants and yet another application under Section 151 readwith Order 11 Rule 12 of the C.P.C. was rejected by the Court on the very same date of its filing i.e, on 19.08.2025 without obtaining any reply of the defendants and therefore, the trial Judge seems to be predisposed against the Plaintiff.

6. Upon considering these assertions, it is seen that so far as the most vehement contention raised by the Petitioner that when application under Section 45 of Evidence Act had been filed for expert opinion to Signatures on document Ex.P-1 but the Trial Court allowed the application for document Ex.P-2.

7. This Court has gone through the application which mentions the contents of the document Ex.P-1 to be the agreement said to be signed by defendants No.1 and 2. The particulars of the document which are given in the applicat