[2025:RJ-JD:42140]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 94/2025

1. Chhagu Lal Gadari @ Chhaguda S/o Shri Dhukal Gadari, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Salampura, Post Dareeba, Tehsil And Dist. Bhilwara, (Raj.)

2. Kishan Lal @ Kishna S/o Dhukal Gadari, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Salampura, Post Dareeba, Tehsil And Dist.

Bhilwara, (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Mahaveer Singh S/o Chatur Singh, Village Salampura, Post Dareeba, Tehsil And Distt. Bhilwara.

2. Kuldeep Singh S/o Mahaveer Singh, Village Salampura, Post Dareeba, Tehsil And Distt. Bhilwara.

3. Narendra Singh S/o Mahaveer Singh, Village Salampura, Post Dareeba, Tehsil And Distt. Bhilwara.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghvendra Mundel For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/09/2025

1. The instant civil transfer application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 1/2023 pending in the Court of Gram Nyayalaya, Suwana, District Bhilwara, to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, or any other competent Court situated at Bhilwara City.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant instituted a civil suit seeking perpetual and mandatory injunction before the Court of Nyay Adhikari, Suwana, District Bhilwara, in

2022, which remains pending adjudication.

2.1. The grievance of the applicant is that the learned Presiding Officer is not conducting the matter in accordance with law, and is instead allegedly causing undue harassment by raising unwarranted objections during hearings. The matter is being posted routinely on a weekly basis for expeditious disposal. The applicant further contends that the Presiding Officer is disregarding settled legal principles and passing perverse orders. For instance, the trial Court rejected the applicant’s applications seeking (i) appointment of a commission to inspect the site and (ii) impleadment of the Gram Panchayat under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

2.2. In addition, the applicant has made serious allegations against the Presiding Officer, asserting a close relationship with an advocate named Sanjay Chhipa, and has alleged that the judicial conduct towards the plaintiff has been persistently hostile and uncooperative. It is on these grounds that the present application seeking transfer of the proceedings has been moved.

3. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and meticulously examined the material placed on record.

3.1. Section 24 CPC confers a discretionary power on the Court to transfer or withdraw cases, either upon an application by a party or suo motu. However, such discretion must be exercised judicially, and only in circumstances where the interest of justice demands such intervention. The mere desire of a party to shift the venue cannot constitute a valid basis for invoking this extraordinary jurisdiction.

3.2. This Court has earlier dismissed a similar transfer petition being CTA No. 251/2025, Devkinandan v. State of Rajasthan, vide order dated 04.09.2025, wherein identical grounds of bias were raised without being substantiated by any credible material. Relevant paragraphs (5 to 7) of the said judgment are reproduced below for ready reference:

“5. I have carefully heard the rival submissions and meticulously examined the record.

5.1. The principles governing transfer of suits under Section 24 CPC are well crystallized. The power is discretionary, to be exercised with circumspection, and only when the ends of justice so demand. Two competing considerations must always be balanced:

(i) the right of a litigant, as dominus litis, to choose his forum, and (ii) the paramount duty of the Court to ensure a fair trial, free from prejudice or likelihood of bias.

5.2. Upon careful scrutiny of the rival contentions and the material placed on record, this Court is guided by the well-settled proposition that the power of transfer under Sectio