Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Ex no. 163/2026
Gopal Singh vs Ajay Ojha
DLET030008212026
31.08.2026
File is taken up suo moto as well as an application for objection
under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC read with section 151 CPC on
behalf of JD is pending for consideration.
Present: None for DH.
JD along with Ld. Counsel.
A report from bailiff has been received stating that
when he had went for the execution of warrants then the son and
the daughter of JD had threatened to jump from the roof. Further
stating that after that the wife of JD also tried to intervene the
execution proceedings after which the execution proceedings
were executed when she admitted that there was no order from
the court for stay of the proceedings and thereafter, the suit
property was handed over to the DH and the belongings of JD
were handed over to his family members though they had refused
to give any receiving on the same.
It is pertinent to mention herein that on 29.08.2026
at about 2:45 pm, a call was received by the undersigned at her
official mobile number from the mobile no. 8076707196
(Truecaller ID showing as- Amit Ojha) and the request was made
that the execution proceedings relating to the attachment of
property in question be stopped.
The communication was unsolicitated and was
directly concerning the subject matter of the present proceedings
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
before this court. No discussion was undertaken by the Presiding
Officer with the said person regarding the merits of the matter or
the manner in which the proceedings were to be dealt with.
The aforesaid facts are being recorded on the
judicial record in the interest of transparency and institutional
propriety. No finding is hereby recorded regarding the intention
or the conduct of the person who made the communication and
no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the execution
proceedings or on the rights and contentions of either party.
It is the fundamental requirement of the
administration of justice that the judicial proceedings are
conducted with complete impartiality and independence and the
confidence of litigants in the neutrality of the court is maintained.
The requirement of judicial propriety also warrants that a
Presiding Officer should remain insulated from private
communications on or behalf of parties concerning to the matters
pending before the court. The requirement of impartiality is not
confined merely to the absence of actual bias, the judicial process
must also inspire confidence in the litigants and in the
administration of justice. At the same time, the recusal cannot be
resorted on the basis of fanciful or unfounded apprehension as
the judicial officer has the duty to discharge the judicial function
independently and fearlessly.
In
Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India, 1987, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had recognized the importance of
examining the question of bias from the perspective of
reasonable apprehension.
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
In these circumstances and in order to preserve the
complete confidence in the impartiality and independence of the
judicial process, this court considered it appropriate not to
proceed further with the present matter.
This course is adopted purely as a matter of
institution, propriety and to preserve the confidence of all
concerning administration of justice.
Accordingly, Ahlmad is directed to place the case
file complete in all respects before Ld. Principal District &
Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Court on 02.09.2026
at 2:00 pm for appropriate orders and directions.
Meanwhile, court notice be issued to the DH with
the direction to appear before the Ld. Principal District &
Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Court on 02.09.2026
at 2:00 pm.
Previous given date i.e. 13.10.2026 stands cancelled.
(Chakita Srivastava)
Civil Judge/East
KKD Courts/31.08.2026
-- 3 of 3 --