In this transfer petition, the petitioner sought transfer of execution proceedings from Karkardooma Courts alleging bias due to the respondent counsel's interaction with the presiding judge. The court found no objective evidence of bias or threat against the current judge and was not inclined to transfer the matter.
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.
$~79
Through: Mr.Anupam Dwivedi, Adv.
versus
RAKESH PAL .....Respondent Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 12.11.2024
"35. That on 25.09.2024, the counsel for the Respondent No.1/ DH initially tried to get an adjournment on the ground that the DH has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, challenging the order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Execution Case and the Appeal was listed for hearing 28.10.2024 and hence, the evidence may not be recorded till the appeal was decided. When the Ld. Executing Court inquired whether there was any stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the counsel for the DH replied in negative. The Ld. Executing Court
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2024 at 13:06:38
rejected counsel's request of adjournment and directed for recording of the Objector's Evidence. Consequently, some documents were tendered in examination-in-chief and exhibition I marking of documents was going on. Suddenly, the Counsel for the DH, Sh. Roshan Sahay, Advocate, started shouting in the court and created a ruckus. The counsel for the DH shouted at the court saying that he had no trust upon the Ld. Executing Court, as the Ld. Court was giving undue favour to the Objector from the very beginning. He further said that his case may be sent to some other court as the Ld. Executing Court was not acting fairly. He further said that since he was a member of the Bar Association, he had got every right to raise his voice if the court was not acting fairly. Such sudden behaviour of the counsel was shocking for the Ld. PO as well for the others, present inside the court room. A true copy of the order dated 25.09.2024, passed by the I,d. Executing Court of Ms. Pooja Jain, Ld" DJ-03, East, Kakardooma Courts, is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-34.
36. That it is important to mention here that the DH's Counsel, Sh. Roshan Sahay, advocate, is politically very active in the Karkardooma Bar Association and had once been elected as the member executive of the Association. The said execution case was sent to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on the same day at 2 PM for transferring to some other court.
37. That on 25.09.2024 at around 12.30 PM, the Objector came with his son for appearing before the Court of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, East. While the Objector was sitting with his son in the common hall, he saw the said counsel Sh. Roshan Sahay, going into the corridor leading to the chamber area of the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, where the entry for common is restricted. Sh. Sahay came out of the chamber are after almost 20 minutes.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2024 at 13:06:38
execution petition was ordered to be transferred to the Court of District Judge-05, East-District, Karkardooma Courts.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2024 at 13:06:38
same would not be sufficient ground for the transfer of the petition. 7. Similarly in the case of Zohra Begum v. VIIth Addl. Distt. Judge, Bareilly,2 the High Court of Allahabad, in paragraph nos.7 and 8, has made the following pertinent observations:-
" 7. The allegation is to the extent apart from the allegation against the officer is that the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that he will not be getting justice if the appeal is decided by any officer in the district since the opposite party who is an office-bearer of the local Bar Association and therefore, the appeal filed by her would be decided in her favour. This apprehension according to Mr. Krishna Mohan can be reasonably apprehended by the appellant petitioner on account of the fact that the appellant petitioner had lost the case in the learned trial court.
8. If every such apprehension is to be accepted, in that event all cases in which a lawyer is involved has to be transferred outside the courts or districts in which he is practicing. This apprehension that has been expressed is a subjective one. It cannot be substantiated objectively. Subjective apprehension is a particular state of mind of a particular person. Such ground of subjective satisfaction cannot be accepted. Even though Mr. Krishna Mohan refers to various decisions of the High Courts as well as Supreme Court with regard to the proposition when an order of transfer is to be made, but it is not necessary to go into those decisions since there is no doubt or dispute with regard to the proposition laid down therein. It is settled principle of law that if there is sufficiently reasonable suspicion, however little it may be, in the mind of the litigant, in such circumstances the same has to be taken into account and weighed with as a factor for the purpose of deciding an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But such suspicion must have some nexus or some objectivity. If some one comes and says that he has some suspicion and apprehension in his mind, in that event in will be too general a proposition and will destroy the entire infrastructure of the judicial system. Defeat of a case in the learned trial court cannot be a ground for suspicion. If such an proposition is accepted, in that event whenever a litigant looses and then he will be asking for transfer of his appeal, and in that event all appeals are to be transferred simply on the basis of subjective suspicion on the part of the appellant. It will be too wide a proposition which is very difficult to accept. In view of
1 Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1621 of 2022.
2 2000 SCC OnLine All 351.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2024 at 13:06:38
the settled principle the suspicion should be a suspicion to be accepted under the judicial norms and principles to be a suspicion which could be reasonably harbored by a litigant. The court has to find out the situation and the circumstances whether the suspicion so harbored could be harbored reasonably by a sensible man."
3 2024 SCC OnLine AP 3144.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2024 at 13:06:38
that there must be reasonable apprehension while considering transfer of cases from one Court to another Court, and as the Presiding Officer submitted his report in a transfer petition with regard to allegations, the Hon'ble Apex Court to protect interest of Presiding Officer transferred the case, though there was no cause to transfer the case on the allegations made by the petitioner in Pushpa Devi Saraf case referred supra."
“9. The purpose of is merely to confer on the court a. A court acting under Section 24 CPC may or may not in its judicial discretion transfer a particular case. Section 24 does not prescribe any ground for ordering the transfer of a case. In certain cases it may be ordered suo motu and it may be done for administrative reasons. But when an application for transfer is made by a party, the court is required to issue notice to the other side and hear the party before directing transfer. To put it differently, the court must act judicially in ordering a transfer on the application of a party. In the instant case the reason which has weighed with the High Court for directing transfer does not really make out a case for transfer.”
4 C.R.P No. 5576 of 1998.
5 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 4736.
6 (2009) 1 SCC 130.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2024 at 13:06:38
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
NOVEMBER 12, 2024/MJ
7 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6560.
8 (2000) 7 SCC 129.
9 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1118.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2024 at 13:06:38
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to transfer execution proceedings to another court due to apprehension of bias involving the respondent counsel.
Whether the allegation of an interaction between the respondent's counsel and the presiding officer constitutes reasonable suspicion warranting transfer.
Gokul Prasad
Rakesh Pal
Purus Hindu Kumar Kaurav
As recorded by the court registry
A petition to transfer a civil case from one court to another.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
