Dismissed¶35

Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Verma and others v. Add. District Judge-7, Lucknow and others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2026TACL/286/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer application; Section 24 CPC; Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC; apprehension of bias; cogent evidence; conjectures and surmises; District Judge Lucknow report; Additional District Judge-7 Lucknow; Misc. Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2014; Sunder Devi v. U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board; consigned to record; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; TACL 286 of 2025; Sweta Singh v. Udai Shankar Singh; Nagendra Sharma v. State of U.P.; Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N.

What did the court decide?

No transfer ordered; the transfer application was consigned to record. The applicant was given liberty to file an appropriate application before the District Judge, Lucknow regarding the alleged nuisance by opposite parties No. 3 and 4. ¶35

Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Verma and others vs Add. District Judge-7, Lucknow and others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer application under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of Misc. Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2014 (Smt. Sunder Devi v. U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board & Others) from the Court of the Additional District Judge-7, Lucknow to another competent court ought to be entertained on the basis of the applicant's allegations of an untoward incident. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The allegations levelled by the applicant regarding the alleged untoward incident cannot be accepted without credible material on record to prove the same.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

There is no justifiable reason or legitimate ground to entertain the prayer for transfer of Misc. Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2014 from the Court of the Additional District Judge-7, Lucknow to any other competent court in a nearby district.

¶34

Key takeaways

On the ancillary grievance of nuisance outside the courtroom, it shall be open to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the District Judge, Lucknow, who shall look into the matter and may pass appropriate order in accordance with law.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J. — Transfer Application (Civil) No. 286 of 2025 under Section 24 CPC by Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Verma & Others seeking transfer of Misc. Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2014 (Smt. Sunder Devi v. U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board & Others), filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, from the Court of Additional District Judge-7, Lucknow, on allegations of an untoward incident. Acting on this Court's order dated 06.11.2025, the District Judge, Lucknow reported (opinion dated 21.02.2026, enclosing ADJ Court No. 7 report dated 20.02.2026) that no such incident appeared on the record and proceedings were being conducted regularly. Relying on this Court's recent decision in Dr. Sweta Singh v. Dr. Udai Shankar Singh (Transfer Application (Civil) No. 321 of 2025, decided 11.02.2026), which reproduced Nagendra Sharma v. State of U.P., (2025) SCC OnLine All 8489 (transfer requires cogent evidence of bias; onus on the applicant to substantiate genuine apprehensions) and noted Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N., (2000) 6 SCC 204, the Court held that the allegations could not be accepted without credible material and found no justifiable reason or legitimate ground to entertain the transfer prayer. The application was consigned to record. The applicant was left free to move the District Judge, Lucknow regarding the alleged nuisance caused by opposite parties No. 3 and 4 outside the courtroom.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 286 of 2025

¶3

Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Verma And Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Add. District Judge-7, Lucknow And Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mohd. Nafees, Mohammad Afsar, Syed Aftab Ahmad

¶9

Court No. - 19

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.1; Sri Noor Alam Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2; and Sri Mohammad Nafees, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 & 4.

¶12

This Court vide order dated 06.11.2025 directed the District Judge, Lucknow to ascertain the correctness of the allegations levelled by the applicant in the present transfer application and to communicate his report/ opinion to this Court. Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 was asked to obtain the opinion of the District Judge, Lucknow as well as the report from the concerned Court regarding the alleged mishappening. He has placed before this Court a copy of the report dated 20.02.2026 submitted by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Lucknow to the District Judge, Lucknow, along with the opinion of the District Judge, Lucknow dated 21.02.2026 in terms of the order of this Court. The same is taken on record.

¶13

The said report/ opinion of the District Judge, Lucknow dated 21.02.2026 reads as under:

¶14

प्रेषक, जनपद न्यायाधीश, लखनऊ। सेवा में, िनबंधक (न्याियक) (िलिटगेशन), माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, लखनऊ खण्डपीठ, लखनऊ।

¶15

TACL No. 286 of 2025

¶16

¶17

: 1333/XV-9/98 लखनऊः िदनांकफरवरी 21, 2026 पत्राकं

¶18

िवषयः स्थानांतरण प्राथर्ना पत्र (िसिवल) नं०-288/2026 देवी प्रसाद व अन्य बनाम अपर िजला जज, कोटर् नं०-7, लखनऊ के संबंध में।

¶19

महोदय,

¶20

उपयुर्क्त िवषय के संबंध में माननीय उच न्यायालय के पत्र सं०-1474/L.C. 2357/2026 िदनांिकत-17.02.2026 का सन्दभर् ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें। उक्त के संबंध में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के िनदेर्शों के अनुपालन में संबंिधत न्यायालय से आख्या आहूत की गयी।

¶21

संबंिधत न्यायालय अपर िजला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश, कोटर् नं०-7, लखनऊ द्वारा प्रेिषत आख्या िदनांिकत-20.02.2026 के अनुसार सादर अवगत कराना है िक वतर्मान पीठासीन अिधकारी, श्री आशीष कुमार चौरिसया द्वारा उपरोक्त न्यायालय में िदनांक-08.01.2026 को कायर्भार ग्रहण िकया गया है। पूवर् में उक्त न्यायालय में श्रीमती मधु डोगरा, अपर िजला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश के रूप में काय र ्त थी, िजनका स्थानांतरण माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के नोिटिफकेशन सं०-64/Admin. (Services)/2026 िदनांिकत-06.01.2026 के अनुपालन में न्यायालय िवशेष न्यायाधीश, सी०बी०आई०, कोटर् नं०-3, लखनऊ में हो गया है। कायार्लय द्वारा अवगत कराया गया िक न्याियक अिधकारी श्रीमती मधु डोगरा िदनांक-31.01.2026 से 05.03.2026 तक अिजत अवकाश पर है।

¶22

संबंिधत न्यायालय द्वारा प्रेिषत आख्या िदनांिकत-20.02.2026 में यह उल्लेख िकया गया है िक प्रश्न्नगत प्रकीणर् िसिवल अपील सं०-43/2014 श्रीमती सुन्दर देवी बनाम उ०प्र० िशया सेन्ट्रल बोडर् आिद की पत्रावली न्यायालय अपर िजला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश, कोटर् नं०-7, लखनऊ में लिम्बत है, िजसमें अपीलाथीर्गण/आवेदक के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता की ओर से प्राथर्ना पत्र िदनांिकत02.09.2025 वास्ते वकालतनामा वापस िलये जाने हेतु न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत िकया गया, िजस पर तत्कालीन पीठासीन अिधकारी द्वारा प्राथर्ना पत्र को सूचीबद्ध करने का आदेश पािरत करते हुए, िदनांक-02.09.2025 को अपीलाथीर्गण को अपना अिधवक्ता िनयुक्त िकये जाने का समय प्रदान िकया गया।

¶23

प्रस्तुत आख्यानुसार, जहां तक िदनांक-26.08.2025 को िवपक्षी अिधवक्ता के अिधवक्ता कैफी अहमद द्वारा आवेदक के अिधवक्ता श्री के. के. िद् व ेदी पर हमला िकये जाने का प्रश्न है, उस संबंध में अवगत कराया गया है िक पत्रावली पर ऐसा कोई उल्लेख नहीं है। इसके अितिरक्त, उक्त न्यायालय के तत्कालीन रीडर द्वारा यह आख्या प्रस्तुत की गयी िक िदनांक-26.08.2025 को ऐसी कोई घटना उनके संज्ञान में नहीं है। प्रश्नगत प्रकीणर् िसिवल अपील सं०43/2014, श्रीमती सुन्दर देवी बनाम उ०प्र० िशया सेन्ट्रल बोडर् आिद की पत्रावली में कायर्वाही िनयिमत एवं सुचारू रूप से संचािलत है। पीठासीन अिधकारी की आख्या िदनांिकत-20.02.2026 इस पत्र के साथ सुलभ संदभर् हेतु संलग्न है।

¶24

अतः अनुरोध है िक उपरोक्त आख्या को माननीय न्यायालय के समक्ष सादर अवलोकनाथर् प्रस्तुत करने की कृपा करें।

¶25

The the aforesaid report submitted by the District Judge, Lucknow, reveals that no such incident as alleged by the applicant in the instant Transfer Application ever took place at least to the best of his information.

¶26

TACL No. 286 of 2025

¶27

¶28

Recently, this Court in the case of Dr. Sweta Singh versus Dr. Udai Shankar Singh in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 321 of 2025 decided on 11.02.2026, has observed as under:

¶29

This Court in the case of Nagendra Sharma and Another Versus The State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Another, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine All 8489, has held as under:

¶30

"It is trite in law that transfer of a case can be made only when the same is reasonably required under the facts and circumstances of the case and only if the allegations made by the applicant seeking transfer of the proceedings are straightway discovered or found to be adversely affecting the interest of justice. Further, a petition seeking transfer of the case should not be based on conjectures and surmises and the onus is on the person who alleges bias to substantiate that the apprehensions are reasonable, genuine and justifiable. There must be cogent evidence available on record to infer the existence of any element of bias."

¶31

It is safe to observe that no universal or hard-and-fast rules can be prescribed for deciding the transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Another aspect that also needs attention is that the transfer of case from one court to another is a serious matter because it indirectly casts doubt on the competence of the judge from whom the matter is transferred, this should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause. If there are good and sufficient means for transferring case from one court to another, they must be clearly set out. The court while exercising the power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 may not interfere in a casual manner unless a strong case for transfer is made out to establish that continuation of the case in a particular court would lead to injustice or the suit has been filed in a particular court for the purpose of working injustice. Further, mere balance of convenience in favour of parties in another court is not a sufficient ground, though it is a relevant consideration. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the applicant alone who approached the Court seeking transfer of the pending proceeding on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the parties and of course the best interest of litigation. The observations finds support from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Nazar Madani Versus State of T.N. and Another, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 204.

¶32

TACL No. 286 of 2025

¶33

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the report dated 20.02.2026 of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Lucknow and the opinion of the District Judge, Lucknow dated 21.02.2026, this Court is of the view that the allegations leveled by the applicant regarding the alleged untoward incident cannot be accepted without any credible material on record to prove the same. Further, this court could not find any justifiable reason or legitimate ground to entertain the prayer for transfer of Misc. Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2014 (Smt. Sunder Devi v. U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board & Others), filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C., from the Court of the Additional District Judge–7, Lucknow to any other competent court in a nearby district .

¶35

Resultantly, the present transfer application filed by the applicant under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is hereby consigned to record.

¶36

After the dictation of the above part of the order, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the private opposite parties No. 3 and 4 causes unbearable nuisance outside the Court room on dates fixed and it becomes very difficult rather impossible for the applicant as well as for his counsel to reach the Court room to do the pairavi of the case.

¶37

Needless to say, that it shall always be open for the applicant to file appropriate application before the District Judge, Lucknow who shall look into the matter and may pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶38

February 23, 2026 (Manoj K.)

¶39

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Verma and others v. Add. District Judge-7, Lucknow and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Verma and others v. Add. District Judge-7, Lucknow and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Anjali Singh vs Shailesh Singh

M/S Alpine Infra Projects Ltd., Ghaziabad Thru. Authorized Representative, Mr. Neeraj Gupta vs Bablu Kumar Singh

Sudha Jain and Another vs U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Rajya Niyojan Sansthan Lko. and Another

Mira vs Deputy Commissioner Stamp Sitapur Lko and 2 Others

Mohit Pandey Alias Mohit Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 4 Others

Ayushi Singh vs Dharmendra Kumar