# Amit Agarwal v. Atul Gupta

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1319
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-11-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 519 of 2014
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-agarwal-v-atul-gupta-43129
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.P.C.-Section 24-Transfer of Arbitration
Appeal pending before D.J. Merrut to any
other adjoining District-on ground by
conduct of presiding judge-no hope of fair
justice-bent upon to grant interim order
in favor of Respondent-held the ground of
transfer wholly vague unsubstantiated-no
ground for interference-rejected.
Held: Para-30 & 39

## Text

3 All].
 Amit Agarwal Vs. Atul Gupta
1319
21. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 519 of
2014
(U/s24 C.P.C.)
Amit Agarwal
...Petitioner
Versus
Atul Gupta
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi,
Sri Anil Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri K.R. Sirohi, Sri Pankaj Dubey
C.P.C.-Section 24-Transfer of Arbitration
Appeal pending before D.J. Merrut to any
other adjoining District-on ground by
conduct of presiding judge-no hope of fair
justice-bent upon to grant interim order
in favor of Respondent-held the ground of
transfer wholly vague unsubstantiated-no
ground for interference-rejected.
Held: Para-30 & 39
30.
If there is a deliberate attempt to
scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate
Court, it is bound to shake confidence of
the litigating public in the system and has
to be tackled strictly. The damage is
caused not only to the reputation of the
concerned Judge, but, also to the fair
name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive
behaviour, use of disrespectful language,
and,
at
times,
blatant
condemnatory
attacks, like the present one, are often
designedly employed with a view to tame
a Judge into submission to secure a
desired order. The foundation of our
system is based on the independence and
impartiality
of
the
men
having
responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial
Officers. If their confidence, impartiality
and reputation is shaken, it is bound to
affect the very independence of judiciary.
Any person, if allowed to make disparaging
and derogatory remarks against a Judicial
Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in
breaking down the majesty of justice.
39. In the light of the above exposition
of law, the pleadings in the case in hand
have been examined. The grounds taken
by
applicant
is
vague
and
wholly
unsubstantiated. The mere allegation is
not sufficient to justify transfer unless it
is
also
substantiated
by
relevant
material, which is not the case in hand.
No ground, therefore, justifying transfer
is made out under Section 24 C.P.C.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1960 Kerela 91; AIR 2003 AP 312; 1914
(27) MLJ 645; AIR 1990 MP 320; (1882) ILR 5
All 60; (1979) Cri.L.J. 459(SC); 1990 (1) SCC
4; AIR 2008 SC 1333; AIR 2009 SC 1374; AIR
2009 SC 1773; (1938) 2 MLJ 249; AIR 1933
Lahore 635; AIR 1975 Delhi 42; AIR 1953
Orissa 46; AIR 1996 Kerela 113; AIR 1976 P &
H 321; 2007 (3) AWC 3119; AIR 1995
Karnataka 112; AIR 1981 Madas 54 or 24; AIR
1981 Madras 24; AIR 1988 Gujrat 63; AIR
2003 AP 448; AIR 2001 Culcutta 26; (1998) 7
SCC 248; 2013 (2) AWC 1546; AIR 2003 AP
312.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Prabhakar
Dwivedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
Sri
K.R.Sirohi,
Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Dubey,
learned counsel for opposite party and
perused the record.
2. This transfer application has been
filed under Section 24 C.P.C., seeking
transfer of non admitted Arbitration
Appeal No. Nil of 2014 (Atul Gupta Vs.
Amit Agarwal) pending in the Court of
District Judge, Meerut to any other
1320
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District Judge of any nearby District
making allegations against Sri Amar
Singh Chauhan, District Judge, Meerut.
Paras 23 to 26 of the affidavit, filed in
support of transfer application contain
allegation, which read as under:
"23. That at about 3.30 p.m. the
appeal filed under section 37(2)(b) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by
the respondent was taken up before the
District Judge Meerut then the time was
sought from the counsel for the applicant
to file objection as in the said appeal the
caveat of the applicant was already filed
then in utter surprise the District Judge
Meerut Sri Amar Singh Chauhan told to
the counsel for the applicant to prepare
the objection within 30 minutes so as to
hear the matter at 4.00 p.m. and since it
was not possible to prepare the objection
towards the said appeal within 30 minutes
and as such only after various request
and persuasion, the District Judge Meerut
fixed the next date as 03.11.2014. It is
also stated that on 30/31.10.2014, the
elections of District Bar Association was
scheduled.
24. That as the earlier occasion also
the present Presiding Officer/Sri Amar
Singh Chauhan District Judge Meerut has
completely ignored the arguments and
objection filed by the petitioner and being
prejudiced he has passed the order dated
20.12.2013. Further more the present
District Judge Meerut is much interested
to pass interim order in favour of
respondent due to which earlier on
29.10.2014 when the case was taken up,
the Presiding Officer earlier granted only
30 minutes time to prepare the objections
to the appeal and only after great request
and persuasion the next date has been
fixed as 03.11.2014.
25. That is is also stated that since
the aforesaid appeal dated 29.10.2014
filed by the respondent under section
37(2)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act-1996 before the District Judge
Meerut has yet not been admitted and as
such no any number etc. has been given to
the said appeal and due to said reason no
any certified copy of the order sheet could
be obtained by the petitioner.
26. That as a matter of fact now the
applicant lost all his hope to get justice in
the Arbitration Appeal No.Nil of 2014
(Atul Gupta Vs. Amit Agarwal) pending
before Sri Amar Singh Chauhan District
Judge Meerut in as much as the said
Court is even not ready to consider the
material brought on record and the
argument advance before him on behalf of
the applicant which is apparent from the
aforesaid facts."
3. From the bare perusal thereof
clearly
shows
that
assertions
are
absolutely vague, unsubstantiated and
lacks trustworthiness.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party
opposed the application submitting that
there is no ground for transfer the case.
5.
The power of transfer of a case
from one Court to another under Section
24 C.P.C. is very wide. However, while
exercising such power, the Court itself
must look into the ground taken for
justifying transfer and should consider the
matter within permissible limitations so as
not to exercise power on mere asking by
applicant.
6. The plaintiff, as obiter litis or
dominus litis, has a right to chose any
forum, the law allows him. It is a
substantive right but of course subject to
3 All].
 Amit Agarwal Vs. Atul Gupta
1321
control by statute like Sections 22 to 23 of
C.P.C.
7. The mere factum of expenses or
difficulties should not justify transfer of a
case from one Court to another, unless
Court finds that expenses and difficulties
in the Court, where it is pending, is so
great as to lead injustice to applicant, or,
the suit has been filed in a particular
Court for the purpose of working
injustice. (P. Sadayandi Nadar and Ors.
vs. Venugopala Chetty and Ors., AIR
1960 Kerela 91; Satyasri Fertilisers vs.
E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., AIR 2003 AP
312; and, The Hindustan Assurance and
Mutual Benefit Society Ltd. vs. Rail
Mulraj and Ors., 1914 (27) MLJ 645).
8. It is always necessary to the Court
to find out from the allegations made in
transfer
application,
whether
any
reasonable ground is made out for transfer
of the case. (Smt. Sudha Sharma vs. Ram
Naresh Jaiswal, AIR 1990 MP 320)
9. Transfer of cases from one Court
to another is a serious matter particularly
when transfer is sought by making
allegations against Presiding Officer. It
sometimes indirectly cause doubt on the
integrity and competence of Presiding
Officer of the Court from whom the
matter is transferred. In cases where
ground for transfer is likelihood of bias of
Presiding Officer, it is onerous duty of
Court to see, whether such ground has
been
substantiated
with
reasonable
certainty or not. It should not be done
without a proper and sufficient cause. In
Tula Ram Vs. Harjiwan Das (1882) ILR 5
All 60 it was held that the Court has to
consider whether applicant has made out a
case to justify it, closing doors of the
Court in which suit is brought to plaintiff,
and leaving him to seek his remedy in
another jurisdiction.
10. In Meneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs.
Rani Jekhmalani, (1979) Cri.L.J. 458
(SC) the Court said:
Assurance of a fair trial is the first
imperative of the dispensation of justice
and the central criterion for the court to
consider when a motion for transfer is
made is not the hypersensitivity or
relative convenience of a party or easy
availability of legal services or like mini
grievances. Something more substantial,
more compelling, more imperiling, from
the point of view of public justice and its
attendant environment, is necessitous if
the Court is to exercise its power of
transfer. This is the cardinal principle
although the circumstances may be
myriad and vary from case to case.
(emphasis added)
11. Again in the context of power of
Supreme Court with regard to transfer of
cases under Section 25 C.P.C. in
Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Ramakrishna
Hegde, 1990(1) SCC 4, the Court said:
"The question of expediency would
depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case but the paramount consideration
for the exercise of power must be to meet the
ends of justice. It is true that if more than one
court has jurisdiction under the Code to try
the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a
right to choose the Court and the defendant
cannot demand that the suit be tried in any
particular court convenient to him. The mere
convenience of the parties or any one of them
may not be enough for the exercise of power
but it must also be shown that trial in the
chosen forum will result in denial of justice.
Cases are not unknown where a party
1322
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
seeking justice chooses a forum most
inconvenient to the adversary with a view to
depriving that party of a fair trial. The
Parliament has therefore, invested this Court
with the discretion to transfer the case from
one Court to another if that is considered
expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words
of wide amplitude- for the ends of justicehave been advisedly used to leave the matter
to the discretion of the apex court as it is not
possible to conceive of all situations
requiring or justifying the exercise of power.
But the paramount consideration must be to
see that justice according to law is done; if
for achieving that objective the transfer of
the case is imperative, there should be no
hesitation to transfer the case even if it is
likely to cause some inconvenience to the
plaintiff. The petitioner's plea for the transfer
of the case must be tested on this touchstone.
(emphasis supplied)
12.
The age of wife and distance
between place of residence and place where
matrimonial proceedings were filed, as well
as absence of people who would escort her,
are some of the grounds considered
reasonable
justification,
for
directing
transfer of case, to a place more suitable to
her. In Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder
Gurcharan
Singh
vs.
Kandi
Friends
Education Trust and Ors., AIR 2008 SC
1333 the Court said that order of transfer
must reflect application of mind and the
circumstances which weighed the Court in
taking action or transfer of case from one
Court to another.
13.

In
Kulwinder
Kaur
@
Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh (supra), the
Court said:
"14.
Although the
discretionary
power of transfer of cases cannot be
imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any
cast-iron formula unanimously applicable
to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that
the power to transfer a case must be
exercised with due care, caution and
circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and
25 of the Code together and keeping in
view various judicial pronouncements,
certain broad propositions as to what may
constitute a ground for transfer have been
laid down by Courts. They are balance of
convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff
or defendant or witnesses; convenience or
inconvenience of a particular place of
trial having regard to the nature of
evidence on the points involved in the
suit; issues raised by the parties;
reasonable apprehension in the mind of
the litigant that he might not get justice in
the court in which the suit is pending;
important questions of law involved or a
considerable section of public interested
in the litigation; interest of justice
demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or
other proceeding, etc. Above are some of
the instances which are germane in
considering the question of transfer of a
suit, appeal or other proceeding. They
are, however, illustrative in nature and by
no means be treated as exhaustive. If on
the
above
or
other
relevant
considerations, the Court feels that the
plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to
have a fair trial in the Court from which
he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only
the power, but the duty of the Court to
make such order."
14. In the matrimonial matters the
convenience of wife and in particular that
she has no one in her family to escort her
to undertake a long journey has been held
to be good ground for transfer of case as
is also evident from Apex Court's decision
in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani vs. Ashok
Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 SC
3 All].
 Amit Agarwal Vs. Atul Gupta
1323
1374 and Fatema vs. Jafri Syed Husain @
Syed Parvez Jafferi, AIR 2009 SC 1773.
15. One of the common ground
which generally is taken is of distrust in
Presiding Officer of the Court. Here the
Courts have to be very careful while
passing the orders for transfer of case.
16.
Where two persons filed suit
against each other in different Courts on the
same cause of action, it was held desirable
that suits should be tried by one and the same
Court. (G.M. Rajulu Vs. Rao Bahadur M.
Govindan Nair, (1938) 2 MLJ 249; Mt.
Zabida Khatoon vs. Mohammad Hayat Khan
and Ors., AIR 1933 Lahore 635; and Manjari
Sen vs. Nirupam Sen, AIR 1975 Delhi 42).
17. Similarly, if two suits in
different Courts are filed raising common
questions of fact and law, and the
decisions are independent, it is desirable
that they should be tried by same judge so
as to avoid multiplicity of litigation and
conflict in decision. (Purna Chandra
Mahanty
and
Ors.
vs.
Samanta
Radhaprasana Das, AIR 1953 Orissa 46).
18. If the fact of suits sought to be
tried together are intertwined with cause
of action in each suit, transfer of suit may
not be refused provided the parties and
subject matter of suits are one and the
same.
(Rosamma
Joseph
vs.
P.C.
Sebastian, AIR 1996 Kerala 113)
19. An order of transfer can also be
made to prevent abuse of process of Court
as said in State Bank of India vs. Sakow
Industries Faridabad (Pvt.) Ltd., New
Delhi, AIR 1976 P & H 321.
20.
In Amardeep and others Vs.
District Judge, Lalitpur and others, 2007(3)
AWC 3119 the applicant put forward his
claim on the basis of a Will before Civil
Judge (Senior Division). The respondent
filed a suit before Civil Judge (Junior
Division) for cancellation of Will. It was
held that claims of both parties were based
on execution and non-execution of alleged
Will, therefore, it would be in the interest of
justice that both cases must be decided in
the same Court. The expression "same
Court" does not mean same Judge, rather it
means the same Civil Court and as such the
order of transferring proceeding from the
Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to the
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was
held proper.
21.
The mere observations of
Presiding Officer of the Court while
hearing a case does not mean that he has
made up his mind in a particular manner
so as to justify an allegation of bias
against such Presiding Officer and this
would not justify transfer of case from
one Court to another. A Judge is not
expected to remain silent during course of
hearing and not to express any opinion. A
sphinx like attitude is not expected from a
Presiding Officer. There has to be an
effective discussion and effective attempt
to
conciliate
or
to
clarify
the
misunderstanding or to get the issues
clear, so that the issues can be settled or a
just and proper decision can be arrived at.
If in that process the Presiding Officer
would make a statement it should not be
misunderstood
as
an expression
of
decision. (Smt. Sangeetha S. Chugh vs.
Ram Narayan V. and others, AIR 1995
Karnataka 112 and Official Assignee,
Madras
vs.
Inspector-General
of
Registration, Bangalore and Anr., AIR
1981 Madras 54 or 24)
22.

In
one
matter
certain
observations were made by a Judge in an
1324
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
earlier case. When a subsequent matter
came up before him this was sought to be
a ground for transfer but declined by the
Court in G. Lakshmi Ammal vs. Elumalai
Chettiar and Ors, AIR 1981 Madras 24.
23. The allegations of bias of
Presiding Officer, if made the basis for
transfer of case, before exercising power
under Section 24 C.P.C., the Court must
be satisfied that the apprehension of bias
or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable.
The expression of apprehension, must be
proved
proved/
substantiated
by
circumstances and material placed by
such applicant before the Court. It cannot
be taken as granted that mere allegation
would be sufficient to justify transfer. In
Smt. Sudha Sharma (supra) the Court
observed that it is the duty of learned
counsel to draft the application and made
allegations with utmost care and caution.
Hon'ble B.M. Lal, J. (as His Lordship
then was), said:
"9. ......a foremost duty casts upon
the counsel concerned while drafting and
making allegations in the transfer petition
against the Judge concerned with utmost
care and caution, particularly in making
wild allegations against the Presiding
Judge. But, it appears that now-a-days it
has become common feature to make
allegations against the Court Presiding
Judge. The counsel should realise that
they are also officers of the Court.
Introducing
fanciful
and
imaginary
allegations as grounds for transfer and
harbouring apprehension such grounds
that fair and impartial justice would not
be done should always be deprecated.
10. Nonetheless, it is also important
for all those who are engaged in the task
of administering justice to remember that
it is incumbent on them to create and
maintain such confidence and atmosphere
by giving every litigant an assurance by
their judicial conduct that fair and
impartial justice will be imparted. It is
necessary to create such a confidence in
the mind of the litigants so that their faith
may not be shaken in Courts of law."
24. Mere suspicion by the party that
he will not get justice would not justify
transfer. There must be a reasonable
apprehension to that effect. A judicial
order made by a Judge legitimately cannot
be made foundation for a transfer of case.
Mere
presumption
of
possible
apprehension should not and ought not be
the basis of transfer of any case from one
case to another. It is only in very special
circumstances, when such grounds are
taken, the Court must find reasons exist to
transfer a case, not otherwise. (Rajkot
Cancer
Society
vs.
Municipal
Corporation, Rajkot, AIR 1988 Gujarat
63; Pasupala Fakruddin and Anr. vs.
Jamia Masque and Anr., AIR 2003 AP
448; and, Nandini Chatterjee vs. Arup
Hari Chatterjee, AIR 2001 Culcutta 26)
25. Where a transfer is sought
making allegations regarding integrity or
influence etc. in respect of the Presiding
Officer of the Court, this Court has to be
very careful before passing any order of
transfer.
26. In the matters where reckless
false allegations are attempted to be made
to seek some favourable order, either in a
transfer application, or otherwise, the
approach of Court must be strict and
cautious
to
find
out
whether
the
allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to
be true on their face, in the entirety of
circumstances, can be believed to be
correct, by any person of ordinary
3 All].
 Amit Agarwal Vs. Atul Gupta
1325
prudence in those circumstances. If the
allegations are apparently false, strict
approach is the call of the day so as to
maintain not only discipline in the courts
of law but also to protect judicial officers
and maintain their self esteem, confidence
and above all the majesty of institution of
justice.
27. The justice delivery system knows
no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a
system following principle of black and
white, i.e., truth and false. Whatever is
unfair, that is identified and given its due
treatment and whatever is good is retained.
Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be
given justice and that is called dispensation
of justice. The prevailing system of
dispensation
of
justice
in
Country,
presently, has different tiers. At the ground
level, the Courts are commonly known as
"Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis
of administration of justice. Sometimes it is
said that subordinate judiciary forms very
backbone of administration of justice.
Though there are various other kinds of
adjudicatory
forums,
like,
Nyaya
Panchayats, Village Courts and then various
kinds of Tribunals etc. but firstly they are
not considered to be the regular Courts for
adjudication of disputes, and, secondly the
kind and degree of faith, people have, in
regular established Courts, is yet to be
developed in other forums. In common
parlance, the regular Courts, known for
appropriate
adjudication
of
disputes
basically constitute subordinate judiciary,
namely, the District Court; the High Courts
and the Apex Court.
28. The hierarchy gives appellate and
supervisory powers in various ways. The
administrative control of subordinate
judiciary has been conferred upon High
Court, which is the highest Court at
provincial
level
and
is
under
constitutional obligation to see effective
functioning of subordinate Courts by
virtue of power conferred by Article 235
read with 227 of the Constitution. No
such similar power like Article 235, in
respect to High Court is exercisable by
Apex Court, though it is the highest Court
of land. Its judgments are binding on all.
Every order and judgment of any Court or
Tribunal etc., in the Country, is subject to
judicial review by Apex Court. This is the
power on judicial side.
29. In Ajay Kumar Pandey,
Advocate, In Re:, (1998) 7 SCC 248, the
Court said that superior Courts, i.e. High
Court as also the Apex Court is bound to
protect the Judges of subordinate Courts
from being subjected to scurrilous and
indecent attacks, which scandalise or have
the tendency to scandalise, or lower or
have the tendency to lower the authority
of any court as also all such actions which
interfere or tend to interfere with the due
course of any judicial proceedings or
obstruct
or
tend
to
obstruct
the
administration of justice in any other
manner. No affront to the majesty of law
can be permitted. The fountain of justice
cannot be allowed to be polluted by
disgruntled litigants. The protection is
necessary for the courts to enable them to
discharge their judicial functions without
fear.
30. If there is a deliberate attempt to
scandalize
a
judicial
Officer
of
subordinate Court, it is bound to shake
confidence of the litigating public in the
system and has to be tackled strictly. The
damage is caused not only to the
reputation of the concerned Judge, but,
also to the fair name of judiciary. Veiled
threats,
abrasive
behaviour,
use
of
1326
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disrespectful language, and, at times,
blatant condemnatory attacks, like the
present
one,
are
often
designedly
employed with a view to tame a Judge
into submission to secure a desired order.
The foundation of our system is based on
the independence and impartiality of the
men having responsibility to impart
justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their
confidence, impartiality and reputation is
shaken, it is bound to affect the very
independence of judiciary. Any person, if
allowed
to
make
disparaging
and
derogatory remarks against a Judicial
Officer, with impunity, is bound to result
in breaking down the majesty of justice.
31. I cannot ignore the fact that
much cherished judicial independence
needs protection not only from over
zealous executive or power hungry
legislature but also from those who
constitute, and, are integral part of the
system. Here is a case where an Advocate
has drafted a petition since the litigants,
namely petitioners, hereat does not appear
to understand the legal complexity much.
The Advocate forgetting the higher status
conferred upon him, making him an
Officer of the Court, has chosen to malign
Judicial Officer of the Subordinate Court,
based on caste consideration as also the
nature of his appointment over which he
himself has no control. In any case, that,
by itself, has no connection with his
performance and function as Presiding
Officer of the Court.
32. An Advocate's duty is as important
as that of a Judge. He has a large
responsibility
towards
society.
He
is
expected to act with utmost sincerity and
respect. In all professional functions, an
Advocate should be diligent and his conduct
should also be diligent. He should conform
to the requirements of law. He plays a vital
role in preservation of society and justice
system. He is under an obligation to uphold
the rule of law. He must ensure that the
public justice system is enabled to function at
its full potential. He, who practices law, is
not merely a lawyer, but acts as moral agent.
This character, he cannot shake off, by any
other character on any professional character.
He derives from the belief that he shares
sentiment of all mankind. This influence of
his morality is one of his possession, which,
like all his possession, he is bound to use for
moral ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges,
are the officers of the Court. Advocacy is a
respectable
noble
profession
on
the
principles. An Advocate owes duty not only
to his client, but to the Court, to the society
and, not the least, to his profession.
33. I do not intend to lay down any
code of conduct for the class of the peoples
known as "Advocates", but certainly I have
no hesitation in observing that no Advocate
has nay business to condemn a Judge merely
on the basis of his caste, creed or religion or
for any other similar trait or attribute. If there
is something lacking on the part of a Judicial
Officer touching his integrity, Advocates,
being Officers of the Court, may not remain
a silent spectator, but should come forward,
raising their voice in appropriate manner
before the proper authority, but there cannot
be a licence to any member of Bar to raise
his finger over the competency and integrity
etc. of a Judicial Officer casually or
negligently or on other irrelevant grounds.
Here the competence and capacity of the
concerned
Judicial
Officer
has
been
attempted to be maligned commenting upon
his integrity and honesty. It deserves to be
condemned in the strongest words. No one
can justify it in any manner. Thinking of
intrusion of such thought itself sounds alert.
It is a siren of something which is not only
3 All].
Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Agra & Ors. Vs. Aziz Ullah
1327
very serious, but imminent. A concept or an
idea which should not have cropped up in
anybody's mind, connected with the system
of justice, if has cropped up, deserves to be
nipped at earliest, else, it may spreads its
tentacles to cover others and that would be a
dooms day for the very institution.
34. This Court also made similar
observations in Smt. Munni Devi and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2013(2) AWC 1546 and in para 10, said:
"10. Be that as it may, so far as the
present case is concerned, suffice is to
mention that the Constitution makers have
imposed constitutional obligation upon the
High Court to exercise control over
subordinate judiciary. This control is both
ways. No aberration shall be allowed to
enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its
purity
is
maintained.
Simultaneously
Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to
be attacked or threatened to work under
outside
pressure
of
anyone,
whether
individual or a group, so as to form a threat
to objective and independent functioning of
Subordinate Judiciary."
35. Sometimes transfer of suit has
also been justified on the ground of
convenience to the parties or witnesses
etc. but in such cases the paramount factor
which should be considered is the
convenience
of
both
parties.
An
exception, however, to some extent, has
been made in matrimonial cases where
convenience of wife has been given a
dominating
factor
than
husband,
particularly when she has none to escort
her or of quite young age or where she
has financial constrained etc.
36. In Satyasri Fertilisers vs. E.I.D.
Parry (India) Ltd., AIR 2003 AP 312 the
transfer of case was declined which was
sought only on the ground that the
applicant is a diabetic patient.
37. The observations made above
are only illustrative to show that Court,
though has wide power of transfer under
Section 24 C.P.C. but it must be exercised
for valid reasons and not in whimsical and
arbitrary manner.
38. Now, this has to be seen,
whether any valid reason exist in the case
justifying transfer.
39. In the light of the above exposition
of law, the pleadings in the case in hand have
been examined. The grounds taken by
applicant is vague and wholly unsubstantiated.
The mere allegation is not sufficient to justify
transfer unless it is also substantiated by
relevant material, which is not the case in
hand. No ground, therefore, justifying transfer
is made out under Section 24 C.P.C.
40.
The
transfer
application,
therefore, fails and is dismissed.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 880 of 2014
Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Agra & Ors.
 Appellants
Versus
Aziz Ullah
Opp. Party
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shekhar Srivastava