Dismissed

M/S Nirma Limited v. Ranjeet Prakash Singh

Rajasthan HC1 Nov 2018CTA/184/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected three separate transfer petitions filed under Section 24 CPC by M/s Nirma Limited. The petitions sought transfer of civil suits from the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sojat City to Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran. The Court found the grounds pleaded immaterial and proceedings had materially progressed.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petitions seeking transfer of Civil Suits No. 29/2017, 10/2018, and 11/2018 are rejected.

M/S Nirma Limited Vs Ranjeet Prakash Singh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 154/2018

¶4

M/s Nirma Limited, having Registered Office at Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat through its Authorized Signatory Shri Parikshit Khiria S/o Shri Kailashdan Ji, B/c Charan, Aged about 37 Years, Presently posted as Officer Legal, M/s Nirma Limited, Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, Pali (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The District Judge, Pali

¶8

Ranjeet Prakash Singh S/o Shri Moti Lal, B/c Jat, R/o Village Jhunjhada, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶9

Baldev Ram S/o Shri Durga Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Digarna, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶10

Hanuman Ram S/o Bhiya Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Balunda, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali

¶11

M/s Bridge & Building Construction Private Limited Company, through its Director Shri Ajit Kumar Jindal, having its Registered Office 90-B, S.P. Mukheherjee Road, Kolkatta-700026

¶12

Mehul Bhai S/o Shri Mansukh Bhai Rafaliya, B/c Patel, R/o Village Vallabh Nagar, Talluka, Tehsil Rajula, District Amreli, Gujrat.

¶13

Teja Ram S/o Shri Dhapu Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶14

Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Kunna Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶15

Shravan Ram S/o Shri Girdhari Ram, B/c Daroga, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali.

¶16

Smt. Umrao Bewa Girdhari Ram, B/c Daroga, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶17

The State of Rajasthan, through Tehsildar-cum-Dy. Registarar (Stamps), Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶18

Mukesh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, R/o Navlai, Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar.

¶19

The Additional District & Session Judge, Sojat City.

. . Respondents

(2 of 8)

[CTA-154/2018]

With

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 184/2018

----Petitioner

Versus

Ranjeet Prakash Singh S/o Shri Moti Lal, B/c Jat, R/o Village Jhunjhada, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶29

Baldev Ram S/o Shri Durga Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Digarna, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶30

Hanuman Ram S/o Bhiya Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Balunda, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶31

M/s Bridge & Building Construction Private Limited Company, through its Director Shri Ajit Kumar Jindal, having its Registered Office 90-B, S.P. Mukheherjee Road, Kolkatta-700026.

¶32

Mehul Bhai S/o Shri Mansukh Bhai Rafaliya, B/c Patel, R/o Village Vallabh Nagar, Talluka, Tehsil Rajula, District Amreli, Gujrat.

¶33

Teja Ram S/o Shri Dhapu Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶34

Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Kunna Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶35

Shravan Ram S/o Shri Girdhari Ram, B/c Daroga, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶36

Smt. Umrao Bewa Girdhari Ram, B/c Daroga, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶37

The State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar-cum-Dy. Registrar (Stamps), Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶38

Mukesh Kumar S/o Mohanlal Sharma, R/o Navlai, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, Distt. Sikar.

¶39

The Additional District & Session Judge, Sojat City.

----Respondents

(3 of 8)

[CTA-154/2018]

And

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 185/2018

----Petitioner

Versus

Ranjeet Prakash Singh S/o Shri Moti Lal, B/c Jat, R/o Village Jhunjhada, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶49

Baldev Ram S/o Shri Durga Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Digarna, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶50

Hanuman Ram S/o Bhiya Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Balunda, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶51

M/s Bridge & Building Construction Private Limited Company, through its Director Shri Ajit Kumar Jindal, having its Registered Office 90-B, S.P. Mukheherjee Road, Kolkatta-700026.

¶52

Mehul Bhai S/o Shri Mansukh Bhai Rafaliya, B/c Patel, R/o Village Vallabh Nagar, Talluka, Tehsil Rajula, District Amreli, Gujrat.

¶53

Teja Ram S/o Shri Dhapu Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶54

Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Kunna Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶55

Shravan Ram S/o Shri Girdhari Ram, B/c Daroga, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶56

Smt. Umrao Bewa W/o Girdhari Ram, B/c Daroga, R/o Village Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶57

The State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar-cum-Dy. Registrar (Stamps), Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶58

Mukesh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Navlai, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar.

¶59

The Additional District & Session Judge, Sojat City.

----Respondents

(4 of 8)

[CTA-154/2018]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Beniwal

¶64

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.R. Choudhary with Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.

¶65

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶66

Order

¶67

01/11/2018

¶68

Petitioner, M/s. Nirma Limited, has laid three separate transfer petitions seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.73/2014, 75/2014 & 11/2017 with corresponding new suit numbers 29/2017, 10/2018 & 11/2018 respectively, from the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sojat City to Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran, or in the alternative to the Court of District Judge, Pali. Out of these three pending civil suits before Addl. District Judge, Sojat City, in two suits petitioner is plaintiff whereas in the third petitioner is a defendant.

¶69

For seeking transfer of all the three suits, petitioner has invoked Section 24 CPC precisely on the ground that earlier two suits pending before Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran were transferred to Addl. District Judge, Sojat City on a request being made by Presiding Officer of the Court purely on account of personal difficulty and undue pressure created by the respondents. It is also pleaded that the respondents abused process of the Court by levelling baseless allegations in the suit proceedings. Petitioner has further submitted that it was in these compelling

¶70

(5 of 8)

¶71

[CTA-154/2018]

¶72

circumstances the then Presiding Officer of the Court at Jaitaran made a request to District Judge, Pali to transfer the two cases from his Court. In order to seek re-transfer of cases, petitioner has also averred that now those circumstances are not prevailing as the then Presiding Officer has already been transferred from the Court of Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran. Besides this ground, it is also averred that power under Section 24 CPC is to be exercised judiciously in the interest of justice keeping in view the convenience of rival parties. While referring to Civil Suit bearing No.11/2018, same grounds are set out for seeking its transfer from the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sojat City to Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran. A specific plea is also raised that distance between Jaitaran and Sojat City is 50 km and on each and every date of hearing counsel for the parties are required to travel to Sojat City and therefore it would be just and appropriate to transfer all the suits to Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran.

¶73

Before approaching this Court, at the behest of petitioner, endeavour was made for seeking transfer of all the three suits by laying application under Section 24 CPC before District Judge, Pali but its that effort proved abortive.

¶74

On behalf of respondents, reply to the applications is submitted refuting all the averments. It is also submitted by respondents that there is no ground much less plausible ground for seeking transfer of all the three suits from Addl. District Judge, Sojat City to Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran and the applications for transfer are simply designed by the petitioner to prolong proceedings in all the pending cases. In the return, it is also

¶75

(6 of 8)

¶76

[CTA-154/2018]

¶77

pleaded by the respondents that cause of petitioner Company is represented by counsel Shri Bherulal Choudhary, who is practicing at Jodhpur, and therefore, there is no question of any inconvenience to the petitioner Company if the proceedings in all these suits are continued in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sojat City. Apart from that, it is also submitted on behalf of respondents that trial in all the suits has materially progressed, therefore, sans any plausible reason it would not be appropriate to accede to the prayer of the petitioner.

¶78

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶79

Section 24 CPC confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings “at any stage”, either on an application by any party or suo moto . True it is that discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket formula unanimously applicable to all situations, but then it cannot be gainsaid that the power of transfer of cases must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. By no stretch of imagination, power under Section 24 CPC can be exercised by the Court ipse dixit . This Court, while exercising power under Section 24 CPC is required to examine the grounds set out in the petition for transfer and record its prima facie satisfaction about plausible grounds to do so. The power to transfer a case under Section 24 CPC is discretionary but the Court while exercising such power is required to see that reasons for seeking transfer are relevant and germane warranting an order of transfer and transfer of a case cannot be ordered on

¶80

(7 of 8) [CTA-154/2018]

¶81

non-existent or flimsy reasons. Supreme Court, in Jitendra Singh Vs. Bhanu Kumari & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 130], while examining power under Section 24, held:

¶82

“The reasons which weighed with the High Court to direct transfer do not appear to be germane warranting an order of transfer.

¶83

The purpose of Section 24 CPC is merely to

¶84

confer on the Court a discretionary power. 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.”

¶85

Upon examining the grounds set out in the transfer petitions, I am constrained to observe that all of them are far from convincing and not germane to the matter. Therefore, in absence of any exceptional compelling situation, it would not be appropriate to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. It is also noteworthy that trial in all the suits has materially progressed, and therefore, exercising discretion in favour of petitioner would not be in the interest of justice. While it is true that upon bare reading of Section 24 CPC it is rather difficult to comprehend that after rejection of transfer petition by District Court, this Court cannot entertain application under Section 24 CPC but then Court is not loathed to examine the reasons spelt out for declining prayer to transfer the case by the learned District Court. Be that as it may,

¶86

(8 of 8)

¶87

[CTA-154/2018]

¶88

after de novo examination of the grounds set out in the transfer petitions, in my considered opinion, sans reasons germane warranting an order of transfer, it is not desirable to exercise discretionary power under Section 24 CPC.

¶89

Resultantly, all these transfer petitions fail and therefore are hereby rejected.

¶90

Let copy of this order be placed in two other files decided by

¶91

common order.

¶92

(P.K. LOHRA),J

M/S Nirma Limited v. Ranjeet Prakash Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nirma Limited v. Ranjeet Prakash Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Sanjay Kumar

Shyam Singh Parihar Vs Lrs of Yuvraj Singh

Manohar Lal Vs Baljinder Singh

Shiv Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Deva Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan