Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTH DISTRICT :
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In Ref :
1. TP (Civil) No. 24/2024
Mohit Gupta etc Vs. Late Kiran Gulati (through LRs)
2. TP (Civil) No. 25/2024
Mohit Gupta Vs. Ved Prakash Kathuria.
3. TP (Civil) No. 26/2024
Mohit Gupta etc Vs. Sanam Gulati.
4. TP (Civil) No. 27/2024
Mohit Gupta etc Vs. Bhavna Gulati.
5. TP (Civil) No. 28/2024
Mohit Gupta etc Vs. Bhavna Gulati.
6. TP (Civil) No. 29/2024
Mohit Gupta etc Vs. Sanam Gulati.
7. TP (Civil) No. 30/2024
Mohit Gupta etc Vs. Late Kiran Gulati (through LRs)
Present: Sh. Shivam Jangra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. Kapil Gulati, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
06.08.2024
ORDER
Vide this common order, I shall dispose off the above
mentioned seven transfer petitions, moved by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner – Mohit Gupta is seeking transfer of cases
-- 1 of 7 --
pending before the court of Sh. Kishor Kumar, Ld. District Judge-
04, North, Rohini Courts, under section 24 of CPC on the ground
of bias.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is
seeking transfer of cases as the Ld. District Judge is biased against
the petitioner, in as much as the submissions being made by him /
counsel for petitioner, on behalf of the petitioners, are not being
recorded, the exemption application moved on behalf of the
petitioner was dismissed, bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.
10000/- were issued against the petitioner despite the fact that he
was admitted in the hospital, the application u/s 151 CPC moved
by the respondent was allowed even without supplying a copy of
the application to the petitioner, and on 25.09.2023, the concerned
court issued NBW against the petitioner without giving sufficient
opportunity to the petitioner. Copies of certain orders passed by the
concerned court have been appended along with the present
transfer petitions.
4. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the following citations :
(a) P.K. Ghosh, IAS & Another Vs. J.G. Rajput (1995) 6 SCC
744.
(b) Kinri Dhir Vs. Veer Singh, TR. P. (C) 5/2022 and CM No.
4249/2022.
(c) Mohit Gupta Vs. Ved Prakash Kathuria, CM (M)
3005/2024.
-- 2 of 7 --
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has not filed any formal reply
to the transfer petition, and has straight away submitted that the Ld.
Trial Court is conducting the trial in the matters as per law, and that
the allegations levelled by the petitioner are baseless, having been
made without any substance. It is prayed that the transfer petitions
be dismissed.
6. The jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is discretionary and
has to be exercised with extreme caution. The basic principle
governing the granting of a petition under Section 24 of the CPC
which has to be borne in mind is that the petition for transfer of a
case from one Court to another should not be granted readily for
any fancied notion of the petitioning litigant because of the reason
that such transfer of a case from one Judge to another in effect casts
some doubt on the competence and reputation of the concerned
Judge. Unless and until a sufficiently cogent ground is disclosed
transfer can't be allowed as a matter of course. The court from
which the case is sought to be transferred must be shown to have
disclosed a definitely unfair attitude or biased frame of mind
against the petitioner and the petitioner must show reasonable
grounds for apprehending that he/ she may not get justice from that
Presiding Officer if the trial of the case is allowed to continue.
7. A predisposition to decide for or against one party, without
proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias. When
transfer of a case is sought on the allegation of bias of the
Presiding Officer of a court or on the ground of fear of not getting
justice, it becomes the bounden duty of the court to ascertain as to
-- 3 of 7 --
whether the ground of transfer has been substantiated by the
litigant or not and the onus is on the person who alleges
bias to substantiate that his apprehensions are reasonable
genuine and justifiable.
8. While dealing with the transfer of cases, on the ground of
bias, Honourable Supreme Court in R.Balakrishna Pillai v. State
of Kerala [(2000) 7 SCC 129], observed:
“10. ................It is true that one of the
principles of administration of justice is that
justice should not only be done but it should be
seen to have been done. However, a mere allega-
tion that there is apprehension that justice will
not be done in a given case is not suffi-
cient. Before transferring the case court
has to find out whether the apprehension
appears to be reasonable. To Judge the
reasonableness of the apprehension, the state of
mind of the person who entertains the apprehen-
sion is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The
apprehension must appear to the court to be rea-
sonable, genuine and justifiable. In the present
day scenario, if these types of applications are
entertained, the entire judicial atmosphere
would be polluted with such frivolous petitions
for various reasons”.
-- 4 of 7 --
9. Almost on the above identical lines, the Honourable
Supreme Court in Harita Sunil Parab v. State of NCT of Delhi
and Others, [(2018) 6 SCC 358] has reiterated the proposition
on the law of transfer of a case on the ground of bias, thus:
“8. The apprehension of not getting a
fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required
to be reasonable and not imaginary, based
upon conjectures and surmises. No universal
or hard and fast rule can be prescribed
for deciding a transfer petition which will al-
ways have to be decided on the facts of each
case.”
10. In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. [(1984) 3 SCC 405], the
Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:
“7. We have yet to come across a Judge who can
take a decision which does not displease one
side or the other. By the very nature of his work
he has to decide matters against one or other of
the parties. If the fact that he renders a de-
cision which is resented to by a litigant or
his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it
will sound the death knell of the institution. A
line has therefore to be drawn somewhere,
someday, by someone”.
-- 5 of 7 --
11. Thus, the law casts the onus of proof on the shoulders of
the person alleging bias to substantiate that his apprehensions
are reasonable, genuine and justifiable. On a comprehensive
appreciation of the factual matrix in the present case and in the
background of the principles laid down in the above-referred
precedents, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner has
failed to substantiate the allegation of bias. A party cannot be
allowed to have forum-hunting or to browbeat the court to get
things done in his own way.
12. It may be noted that during arguments, on asking, Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner could not show any urgency for getting
operated hip surgery on 05.06.2024 itself, instead of appearing
in the court, and Ld. Trial Court issued bailable warrants on
being not satisfied. In case, JD does not appear in the court, the
court is competent to compel his presence. Admittedly, the
petitioner has challenged the order of Ld. Trial Court before the
Hon’ble High Court.
13. All the orders, which have been referred to, by the Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner, seeking transfer of the matters from
the concerned court of Ld. District Judge, are judicial orders,
passed by a court while discharging his judicial duties, and the
petitioner is well equipped with the assistance of his counsel, to
challenge any judicial order before the appropriate forum, if he
feels any grievance against the said order.
14. In the result, all the seven petitions seeking transfer of
cases filed by the petitioner being devoid of any merits, are
-- 6 of 7 --
dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in all the files.
Files be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON
this 06th DAY OF AUGUST 2024
(VINAY KUMAR KHANNA)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SEESIONS JUDGE
NORTH : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI.
-- 7 of 7 --