# Leasing & Fin. Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad v. Smt. Dimpal Kohali

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 576
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-04
- **Case number:** Transfer Application (Civil) No. 70 of 2021
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/leasing-fin-pvt-ltd-ghaziabad-v-smt-dimpal-kohali-46921
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section
24-applicant was heard on the application
under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC -the court
fixed date for delivery of orders- First
ground taken by the applicant that he
demanded file from the reader of the court
who did not supply him on the pretext
that the same is with the Stenographer is
not sufficient ground for transfer of a
case- Second, ground that the opposite
party is propagating in the court campus
that he will get injunction from the court
cannot be said to form bonafide and
reasonable apprehension in the mind of
the applicant that he would not get
justice-the
said
propaganda
is
also
hearsay and there is no material on record
to corroborate the said apprehension.
(Para 2 to 16)

The Transfer Application is dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issue issued guidelines to the High Court to
make provision in the relevant rules. In
para 9 of judgment, Court held as under:-

"9. Before we part with the case, it
has to be noted that several instances
have come to our notice that several writ
petitions of similar nature are being filed
without disclosing that earlier a petition
had been filed. It would be therefore
appropriate for the High Courts to make
provision in the relevant rules that in
every petition it shall be clearly stated as
to whether any earlier petition had been
filed and/or is pending in respect of the
same cause of action. It shall also be
indicated as to what was the result of the
earlier petition. If this procedure is
followed, the confusion of the kind which
has surfaced in this case can be ruled
out."

5. Similar controversy has also been
decided by Supreme Court in Manubhai
J. Patel v. Bank of Baroda, 2000 (10)
SCC 253; Union of India v. Ranbir
Singh Rathaur, 2006 (11) SCC 696;
and, Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition
Collector, AIR 2005 SC 3165.

6. Considering the proposition of
law propounded by Apex Court in
aforesaid cases, we hold that present writ
petition
filed
by
petitioner
is
not
maintainable. Dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2021)03ILR A576
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 70 of 2021
M/S
Bold
Leasing
&
Fin.
Pvt.
Ltd.
Ghaziabad ...Applicant
Versus
Smt. Dimpal Kohali ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Sri Ved Byas Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
-

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section
24-applicant was heard on the application
under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC -the court
fixed date for delivery of orders- First
ground taken by the applicant that he
demanded file from the reader of the court
who did not supply him on the pretext
that the same is with the Stenographer is
not sufficient ground for transfer of a
case- Second, ground that the opposite
party is propagating in the court campus
that he will get injunction from the court
cannot be said to form bonafide and
reasonable apprehension in the mind of
the applicant that he would not get
justice-the
said
propaganda
is
also
hearsay and there is no material on record
to corroborate the said apprehension.
(Para 2 to 16)

The Transfer Application is dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant.

2. The present transfer application has
been filed by the defendant in Original Suit
No. 689 of 2020 (Smt. Dimpal Kohali Vs.
M/s Bold Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd.)
pending before the court of Civil Judge (Sr.
Division),
Ghazibad.
The
transfer
application has been filed on the ground
that there is apprehension in the mind of
the applicant that he may not get justice
from the court of Civil Judge (Sr.
Division),
Ghazibad.
The
said
apprehension is based upon the fact that in
3 All. M/S Bold Leasing & Fin. Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad Vs. Smt. Dimpal Kohali
577
the aforesaid case, application under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the applicant
and the Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
Ghazibad without hearing the application
of the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC asked the defendant counsel not to
evict the plaintiff from the property in
question.

3. The further ground is that the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was
heard by the court of Civil Judge (Sr.
Division), Ghazibad on 21.12.2020 and the
case was fixed for hearing on application
under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC on 22.12.2020.
The
counsel
for
the
applicant
when
demanded the file of the case from the
Reader of the court of Civil Judge (Sr.
Division), Ghazibad to inspect the file, he
denied the same stating that the file is with
the Steno and 22.12.2020 is fixed. This
conduct of Reader of the court created
apprehension in the mind of applicant.

4. It is also alleged in the application
that the opposite party is propagating in the
compound of the court that he will get
injunction in respect of whole property. The
apprehension that the applicant shall not get
justice cropped up in the mind of applicant on
the basis of aforesaid pleadings.

5. Learned District Judge, Ghaziabad
issued notices to the opposite party and has
also sought report from the concerned court
as there was allegation against the court on
which transfer was sought. In the report, it
was stated that application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC was heard and order on the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was
uploaded on the website of the court.

6. After perusing the report of the
concerned court and appreciating the facts on
record, the District Judge came to the
conclusion that no ground of transfer is made
out.

7. The relevant extract of the order
dated 18.1.2021 passed by the District Judge,
Ghaziabad in Transfer Application No. 341
of 2020 is extracted herein below:-

".....ित्रािली का अिलोकन वकया। ित्रािली
के अिलोकन से विवदत र्ोता र्ै वक प्राथी/प्रवतिादी
द्वारा स्थानातंरण प्राथहना ित्र न्यायालय वसविल जज
(सी०वर्०) के िीठासीन अविकारी िर आक्षेि
लगाते हुए प्रस्तुत वकया गया र्ै। प्राथी/प्रवतिादी ने
अिने स्थानातंरण प्राथहनाित्र में कथन वकया गया र्ै
वक वििक्षी/िादी द्वारा खुलेआम यर् कर्ा जा रर्ा
वक उसने प्रश्नगत भिन का केिल भूतल ि प्रथम
तल वकराये िर वलया था िरिु िर् प्राथी/प्रवतिादी
की िूरे भिन िर स्टे प्राप्त कर लेगा और उसकी
इस संबंि में संबंवित अविकारी से बात र्ो चुकी
र्ै। इस सम्बन्ध में यर् उिेखनीय र्ै वक
प्राथी/प्रवतिादी द्वारा केिल शोर्रत के आिार िर
उक्त अिरण प्राथहनाित्र प्रस्तुत वकया गया र्ै
िरिु इस सम्बन्ध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नर्ीं वकया
गया र्ै। संबंवित िीठासीन अविकारी द्वारा भी
अिनी आख्या में प्राथी/प्रवतिादी द्वारा लगाये गये
आरोिों से इंकार वकया र्ै तथा यर् भी कथन वकया
गया र्ै वक प्राथहना ित्र अंतगहत आदेश 7 वनयम 11
सर्िवठत
िारा
151
सी०िी०सी०
वदनांक
21.12.2020 को गुण-दोर् के आिार िर वनवणहत
वकया गया था तथा उसी वदन बेिसाईट िर
अिलोर् कर वदया गया था।

मामले की उिरोक्त िररन्स्क्स्थवतयों को
दृवष्ट्गत रखते हुए उक्त मूलिाद अिररत वकये
जाने का कोई ियाहप्त आिार प्रतीत नर्ीं र्ोता
र्ै। तदनुसार अिरण प्राथहनाित्र वनरस्त वकये
जाने योग्य र्ै।

आदेश

अिरण प्राथहनाित्र 3ग वनरस्त वकया जाता
र्ैं। मूल अवभलेख अविलम्ब सम्बन्स्क्न्धत न्यायालय
को अवग्रम कायहिार्ी र्ेतु प्रवतप्रेवर्त वकया जािे।
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(नीरज वनगम)

सत्र न्यायािीश,

गावजयाबाद

JO CODE: UP05282

वद 18.01.2021"

8. I have heard learned counsel for the
applicant and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that from the averments made in
the transfer application, it is evident that
the applicant shall not get justice from the
court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
Ghazibad which led the applicant to file the
present transfer application under Section
24 CPC. He submits that the Apex Court
in
Kulwinder
Kaur
@
Kulwinder
Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends
Education Trust and others, 2008 AIR
(SC) 1333 has held that if there is a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of
applicant that he would not get justice from
the court that is a sufficient ground for
transfer of a case from that court.

10. The paragraph-14 of the of Apex
Court judgement relied upon by the counsel
for the applicant in the case of Kulwinder
Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh
(supra), is extracted herein below:-

".....14. Although the discretionary
power of transfer of cases cannot be
imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any castiron 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."

11. Be that as it may, from the
averments made in the application, it is
evident that the applicant was heard on the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on
21.12.2020 and after hearing the applicant,
the court fixed 22.12.2020 for delivery of
orders. The basis for apprehension in the
mind of applicant was that the counsel for
the applicant demanded the file from the
Reader of the court who did not supply him
on the pretext that the same is with the
Steno.

12. The counsel for the applicant
cannot demand as a matter of right to
inspect the file and if he wanted to inspect
the file, there was a procedure prescribed in
the Rule 231 of The General Rules (Civil),
1957 for filing proper application for
inspecting the same.
3 All. Farukh @ Faruk Vs. Appellate Authority/A.D.J. Khurja & Ors.
579

13. Further ground on which transfer of
case was sought was that the opposite party is
propagating in the court campus that he will
get injunction from the court in respect of
whole property, this ground also cannot be
said to form bonafide and reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the applicant that
he would not get justice from the court
inasmuch as the said propoganda is also
hearsay and there is no material on record to
corroborate the said apprehension.

14. In view of the aforesaid fact, this
Court finds that the judgement of the Apex
Court relied upon by counsel for the
applicant is not applicable in the facts of the
present case inasmuch as the pleadings in the
transfer application does not make out ground
which can be said to be sufficient for forming
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
applicant that he will not get justice from the
court.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
this Court does not find any error in the order
of the District Judge rejecting the transfer
application.

16.

Accordingly,
the
transfer
application is dismissed without any order as
to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A579
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ -A ( Rent Control ) No. 15008 of 2020

Farukh @ Faruk ...Petitioner
Versus
Appellate Authority/A.D.J. Khurja & Ors.
 ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dushyant Singh, Sri M.C. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mohd. Saleem Khan, Sri Swetashwa
Agarwal, Sri P.K. Jain

A. Civil Law - UP Urban Building (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - S.
21 (1) (a) - Eviction suit - Bona fide need -
Landlord's need to expand his business -
Held, landlord has got every right to expand
his business and in case he requires
additional space for it, the need cannot be
said to be mala fide. (Para 14)

C. Civil Law - UP Urban Building (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - S.
21 (1) (a) - Eviction suit - Comparative
hardship - Concurrent finding - Based on
cogent
evidence
-
No
perversity
-
Interference - Tenant-petitioner has never
made any effort to search out any shop
during the pendency of litigation and that
the landlord offered him a shop which he
denied to accept - Held, concurrent findings
of fact have been recorded by the courts
below, which are based on cogent evidence
available before the courts below and such
findings are not perverse in nature, even if it
is accepted that two views are possible -
High Court did not incline to interfere in the
impugned orders. (Para 11 and 15)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Surendra Singh Vs A.D.J.,Court No. 11,
Muzaffarnagar & 4 ors., 2019 (3) ARC 112

2. Smt. Shamim Begum & 5 ors. Vs Dinesh
Kumar & 7 ors., 2019 (1) ARC 319

3. Kailash Nath Gupta Vs Smt. Asha Gupta & 3
ors., 2018 (3) ARC 451

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned
counsel along with Sri Dushyant Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant