Applicant sought transfer of a 1986 civil suit alleging the presiding officer's conduct would deny justice. The court found no material circumstances justifying transfer.
transfer application dismissed. Suit remains in the court below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 9
Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 274 of 2018
Applicant :- Swatantra Pal Singh And 6 Others Opposite Party :- Ramkala And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
This transfer application seeks transfer of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the applicant himself in the year 1986.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the Presiding Officer sought to hear the suit on a date when the Lawyers were on strike. After great persuasion an adjournment was granted. In a subsequent order, the Court has observed that the conduct of the applicant-plaintiff is contemptuous.
On the same allegations, the transfer application was filed before the District Judge which has been wrongly dismissed after calling for the comments of the Presiding Officer.
In the above factual background it has been submitted that the applicant does not expect to justice from the court concerned and, therefore, the transfer application is liable to be allowed.
In this connection, it would be relevant to note that the suit, sought to be transferred by means of this transfer application, has been filed in the year 1986. In case, the proceedings are sought to be decided expeditiously, the same by itself cannot be a ground for transfer of a case especially in the circumstances where repeated directions are being issued by the Apex Court that every case filed should be decided within five years and these directions have been duly communicated to the subordinate judiciary by the High Court.
Besides this Court does not find any other material or circumstances which would justify the perception of the applicant he shall not get the justice from the court where the suit is pending.
Therefore, I do not consider it appropriate to entertain this transfer application which is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Priyanka
KUMAR MISHRAANJANI Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRADN: C=IN, O=Personal, PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar Pradesh, Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3ea049885bf64ad5bbb33050e3dfe3e210927d94f413, SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9f36f85dbdc71f5b0ec1e2f0938431e25dbbadc93823915b36c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2018-05-28 14:58:43Foxit Reader Version: 9.1.0
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the apprehension of lack of justice due to alleged contemptuous conduct justifies the transfer of a 1986 suit.
Swatantra Pal Singh And 6 Others
Anjani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
