Dismissed

Rewachand Manglani S/O Shri Sundar Lal v. State Bank of India through Managing Director

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2019CW/26945/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the District Court's refusal to transfer a civil suit alleging delay by the State Bank of India. The court held that the petitioner failed to provide substantial material facts supporting the transfer prayer.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed; the trial court directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

Rewachand Manglani S/O Shri Sundar Lal Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 26945/2018

¶3

Rewachand Manglani S/o Shri Sundar Lal, Aged About 73 Years, By Caste Sindhi, House No. 7/377, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Bank Of India Through Managing Director, Head Office Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶7

Pension And Gratuity Department, State Bank Of India Through Chief Manager (P.p.g.) Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rewachand Manglani, in person For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶11

Order

¶12

12/02/2019

¶13

Petitioner-plaintiff present in person is aggrieved of the order dated 14^th November, 2018, has instituted the present writ application for an application instituted before the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, for transfer of his case to some other Court; has been declined.

¶14

Petitioner contended that the suit proceedings were instituted by him in the Court of Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, against the respondentBank alleging wrongful date of birth entered. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he moved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC, that was declined. On institution of SBCWP No. 11310/2017, before this Court while allowing the writ application

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CW-26945/2018]

¶17

on 21^st February, 2018, an order was made calling upon the respondent-defendants to produce the documents as prayed for by the petitioner-plaintiff and the trial Court was directed to proceed further. Having regard to the nature of suit and the petitioner being a senior citizen the trial Court was directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months.

¶18

Petitioner present in person asserted that respondentdefendants orally informed him that no progress will made in his case for the defendants have already fixed the matter in this regard with the concerned clerk and the Presiding Officer.

¶19

The petitioner insistently argued for transfer of his case to some other Court.

¶20

Heard and considered.

¶21

Indisputably, from a glance of impugned order dated 14^th November, 2018, it is reflected that but for bald allegations on the basis of some hearsay interaction, the petitioner did not specifically detail out the name of the official/officer of the respondent/defendant-bank nor the material facts and particulars about the conversation and information furnished to him with reference to alleged interaction with the concerned clerk so much so even that even the date and details along with time of the conversation with official/officer of the respondent-Bank and the petitioner-plaintiff, were stated in the application seeking transfer of his case to some other Court. At this juncture, it will be profitable to take note of the text of Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure as to transfer of cases, which reads thus:-

¶22

“24. General power of transfer and withdrawal:- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be

¶23

(3 of 5)

¶24

[CW-26945/2018]

¶25

heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-

¶26

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or

¶27

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it, and-

¶28

(I) try or dispose of the same; or

¶29

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

¶30

(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.

¶31

Where any suit or proceedings has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.

¶32

For the purposes of this section,-

¶33

(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court;

¶34

(b) ‘proceeding’ includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.

¶35

The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.

¶36

A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.”

¶37

A glance of the text of Section 24 CPC, as extracted hereinabove, would reflect that the Presiding Officer of the subordinate judicial has no power to recuse himself/herself from the suit or proceedings pending in the Court over which he/she presides (vide M.V. Ganesh Prasad Vs. M. L. Vasudevamurthy: AIR 2003 Karn 39).

¶38

(4 of 5)

¶39

[CW-26945/2018]

¶40

A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balraj Singh & Ors. Vs. Ajit Singh: AIR 2005 Raj 120, while dealing with the transfer of the case from one Court to another observed that such an action indirectly casts doubt on the competence and integrity of the Judge from whom the case is sought to be transferred. Therefore, mere presumptions and possible apprehensions are not sufficient. Thus, there has to be some material detailing out reasons sustainable in law for such a prayer. In absence of substantial material facts and particulars; transfer of the case cannot be claimed for mere satisfaction of a party or on apprehensions.

¶41

Needless to observe that prime importance for consideration on an application for transfer of a case to another Court under Section 24 of CPC must be in view of necessary requirement in the interest of justice. Mere convenience of parties or apprehension cannot be the basis for transfer of a case from one Court to another. There must be reasons sustainable in law to assume that refusal to transfer the case to another Court would result into denial of justice.

¶42

In the case of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi & Ors. Vs. Rani Jethmalani: (1979) 4 SCC 167 , the Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms observed that “assurance of a fair trial in the first imperative of the dispensation of justice, and therefore, the central criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer was made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or a simple availability of a legal service or like mine grievances. Something more substantial are lot of compelling, a lot of imperilling from the point of view of public justice and its attendant surroundings is power of transfer; this is

¶43

(5 of 5)

¶44

[CW-26945/2018]

¶45

the cardinal transfer though the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case”.

¶46

From the factual matrix of the case at hand and principle deducible from the opinions aforesaid; it is evident that the claim of the petitioner for transfer of the case from the present Court to another is based on no substantial or a lot compelling ground. Further, the apprehension expressed on the basis of some conversation between him and the other party and that too without any details of the person unknown; the plea for transfer of his case to some other Court appears to be baseless and without any factual foundation.

¶47

Court below committed no illegality much less material illegality while declining the application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 14^th November, 2018, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶48

In the result, writ application fails and is hereby dismissed. The trial Court would do the needful to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible in view of the directions already made on 21^st February, 2018.

¶49

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶50

Pooja/43

Rewachand Manglani S/O Shri Sundar Lal v. State Bank of India through Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rewachand Manglani S/O Shri Sundar Lal v. State Bank of India through Managing Director

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

Narendra Singh S/O Shri Mahidhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Laxmi Narsingh Vikash Andanr Vs Nand Singh Andanr

Buddhi Prakash Agarwal S/O Late Shri Rameshwar Lal Agarwal Vs Smt. Anita Choudhary

Indian Medical Trust Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Andan

Shri Marwari Khatri Panchayat Ajmer Vs Hemant Kumar @ J. Hemant Kumar Mehta S/O Shri Jawatmal Mehta

Shri Marwari Khatri Panchayat Vs Shri Munshi Ram Bhatnagar S/O Late Shri Partma Swaroop @ Narayan Swaroop Bhatnagar