The High Court dismissed a revision petition seeking transfer of an appeal due to apprehension of bias. The court found the petitioners failed to substantiate reasonable apprehension or show judicial bias.
Revision petition dismissed; application for transfer of case not allowed.
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.
Civil Revision No. 5755 of 2011
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5755 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision. 21.09.2011
Bahal Singh and others .... Petitioners
Versus
Shamsher Singh and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.H.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned District Judge, Ropar whereby the application for transfer of the case has been dismissed without assigning any reasons.
An appeal brought by Shamsher Singh and others, respondents, had been pending in the court of Shri R.S. Rai, learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The petitioners are the respondents in the said appeal. It has been pending in the court for 24.08.2011 for arguments. On the plea that the appellants are openly declaring in their village that they will get the appeal decided in their favour, as they have approached the learned court, the petitioners applied for transfer of the appeal from his court to some other court.
Civil Revision No. 5755 of 2011 --2--
The application was opposed, in which the respondents have cast unwarranted aspersions against the institution of justice as also against the learned presiding officer of the court. It is also denied that they have made any utterance anywhere.
Learned District Judge, Ropar recorded a joint statement of Jarnail Singh and Jaspal Singh to the effect that they have not talked about the matter anywhere in the village, which may affect the decision of the case and that the application is false and consequently dismissed the application vide the impugned order.
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioners have brought this revision petition.
I have heard Mr.H.S. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the other party had openly declared in the village that they have approached the court and that they will get the appeal decided in their favour. According to him, it was sufficient for the petitioners to have apprehended that they will not get justice from the court concerned, before whom the appeal was pending. According to him, learned District Judge, Ropar has adopted a novel way of dismissing the application by recording the statements of the opposite party that they have made no such utterance. He has further submitted that no further reason has been given in the impugned order for dismissing the application. He has therefore submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the application for transfer of case under the provisions of section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be allowed.
Civil Revision No. 5755 of 2011 --3--
The court should transfer a case if it is found that the apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he will not get justice from the court, in which his appeal is pending, is reasonable. It has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 821 that assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. It has been further held that the case may be transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice from the court, in which the suit is pending.
The person applying for transfer under the provisions of section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, has to make out a case of reasonable apprehension that he will not get justice from the court in which the case is pending. In the case in hand, the petitioners have claimed that the other party has declared openly in the village that they will get the appeal decided in their favour from the court because they have approached the court. They have not mentioned as to who of the six respondents has stated so in the village. It is also not stated in the application as to when and where this declaration was made by them in the village. There is nothing in the application with regard to the conduct of the court, which may strengthen their apprehension in this regard. If a party comes with such a plea, which is clearly denied by the other party, it cannot be said that the foundation for transfer of the case has been laid in the application. Even if it is assumed that the other party has made such open declaration in the village, in the absence of any conduct on the part of the court showing a tilt on his part in favour of that party, this declaration may not provide any
Civil Revision No. 5755 of 2011 --4--
ground for transfer of the case, as it could be only a tactic on the part of other party to make the petitioners panicky .
Taking an overall view in the matter, I do not find anything on the record from where it could be gathered that the apprehension voiced by the petitioners in their application made before learned District Judge, Ropar that they will not get justice from the court of Shri R.S. Rai, learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali is reasonable. In the absence of the same, the application has been rightly dismissed.
Consequently, I find no merit in the revision petition and
dismiss the same.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
21.09.2011 dinesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition for transfer of case under section 24 CPC and Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable.
Whether the apprehension of not getting justice from the court is reasonable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and othersReferred¶21
Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 821
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bahal Singh and others
Shamsher Singh and others
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
