Transfer C.M.P. dismissed alleging bias under CPC Section 24. Court held apprehension of unfair trial was baseless and unsupported by material, noting petitioner's own delay tactics and failure to follow notice procedures.
Transfer petition C.M.P. No. 350 of 2017 dismissed; no costs awarded.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY TRANSFER C.M.P.No. 350 OF 2017
ORDER:
This petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') is filed to withdraw O.S.No.168 of 2008 pending on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and transfer to any Court at Ranga Reddy District on the ground that the petitioner will not get fair justice if the matter is tried by the present Presiding Officer.
MSM, J.
2
withdraw the suit and transfer to any Court at Ranga Reddy District.
MSM, J.
3
Court ordered notice, the counsel for the respondent is not cooperating with the petitioner to receive notice and that when the same was brought to the notice of the Court, the I Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad simply adjourned the matter to another date for service of notice. Thus, the Presiding Officer of the Court not entertaining the petitions on one pretext or the other. Thereby, she entertained a doubt about getting fair justice. The petitioner also further contended that she filed I.A.No.4 of 2013 to produce certain documents, which was dismissed and the same was carried to this Court in C.R.P.No.6407 of 2016 and also filed I.A for framing additional issue and other application to change advocate. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 11.04.2017 dismissed the petition recording its reasons. Again Tr.O.P is filed before this Court without challenging the order in Tr.O.P.No.940 of 2017 on the same ground.
MSM, J.
4
advocate, notices of such application may be served on him by registered post with acknowledgment due or by speed post. Thus, it is mandatory to serve notice on the respondent’s counsel, three days in advance when the matter is fixed for hearing and if the advocate refuse to receive the notice, the petitioner can file an affidavit stating the facts. But, no such procedure is followed and started blaming the Presiding Officer of the Court for not entertaining the applications. Therefore, this is not a ground to withdraw and transfer the suit.
MSM, J.
5
of the petition for reopening of the evidence in the suit, there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate her contention. When such apprehension is not based on any material, the Court can refuse to withdraw and transfer the matter by exercising power under Section 24 of C.P.C. and in similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam1 where the Apex Court framed the following guidelines:
“In matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility. ii) Availability of legal aid service.
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV Code of Civil Procedure.
iv) E-Mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate.”
1 AIR 2017 SC 1345
MSM, J.
6
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.
___________________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Date: 23-06-2017. kvrm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Stay petition under Section 24 CPC can be allowed on the ground of apprehension of biased trial without material evidence of misconduct by the Presiding Officer.
Whether undue delay in trial and excessive filing of applications without notice constitute valid grounds for transfer of a pending suit.
Whether the party's own conduct in delaying evidence closure disentitles them from seeking withdrawal and transfer of the suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish NagamExplained¶21
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Sri P.Harinath Gupta/Respondent in underlying suit)
Respondent (Owner of subject premises/Petitioner in underlying suit)
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
