# Nagendra Sharma & Anr v. The State of U.P & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 158
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-10
- **Case number:** Transfer Application (Civil) No. 225 of 2025
- **Bench:** Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagendra-sharma-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-52814
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Considering the fact that the State
has grossly failed to offer any proper
explanation for huge delay other than
mentioning different dates on which office
notes were prepared and files have been
moving from one desk to other and from
one officer to other, in our opinion, the
explanation furnished are neither sufficient
nor acceptable to condone such a huge
delay.

24. We have observed that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has considered the merit of
the case while passing the order dated
03.05.2024 and therefore, by allowing this
Review Petition, we cannot review the
judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

25. In the light of the discussions
made hereinabove, the delay condonation
application is rejected.

26. Consequently, the Review Petition
is also dismissed as we have refused to
condone the delay in filing this Review
Petition.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 158
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 225 of 2025

Nagendra Sharma & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
Transfer of case

Headnotes
Transfer of the restoration proceeding is sought-
conduct of the applicant to prefer the Family
Court for instituting the proceeding - thereafter
to make request for transfer of the subsequent
proceeding emanating from the same to the
Family Court -reflective of his ulterior motive to
cause delay in the proceeding-conduct reflective
of his ulterior.
Application dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure

List of Keywords
subsequent proceeding, ulterior motive to cause
delay

Appearances of parties
Counsel
for
Applicant(s)
:
Anurag
Singh
Chauhan, Ananya Singh Chauhan, Shameem
Jahan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Amrendra
Nath Tripathi, Vijay Nandan Mani Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan,
learned counsel for the Applicants; Sri
Abhishek
Kumar
Pandey,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel along
with Sri Mohammad Kaseem, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State-opposite party No. 1; and Sri
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Vijaya Nandan
Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2.

2. By means of the present Application
filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C., the
Applicants have prayed for the following
relief:

"(i) Stay the all proceedings
relating Miscellaneous Case No.52/2019,
12 All. Nagendra Sharma & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
159
'Smt. Sarla Sharma versus Nagendra
Sharma' pending
before
the
learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, District-
Gonda connected with the divorce petition
vide
Regular
Suit
No.
1006/2017,
'Nagendra Sharma versus Smt. Sarla
Sharma' under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, and moreover this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
transfer the above said case to any
competent and appropriate at district
Lucknow having jurisdiction to entertain
the same, in the larger interest of justice.

(ii) Issue any other order or
direction by which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit, just and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case in favour of
petitioners, in the interest of justice."

3. The contention of the learned counsel
for the Applicants is that the marriage of the
first Applicant namely Nagendra Sharma
with the second Opposite party namely Smt.
Sarla Sharma was dissolved vide ex-parte
Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2019 passed
by the Court of learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gonda in Case No.1006 of
2017 (Nagendra Sharma versus Smt. Sarla
Sharma), under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.

4. The second Opposite party herein
preferred an application for recall of the exparte order dated 16.01.2019 along with an
application for condonation of delay,
before the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gonda on 29.05.2019 and for the
Restoration of the Regular Case No. 1006
of 2017 (Nagendra Sharma versus Smt.
Sarla Sharma), under Order IX Rule 13
read with Section 151 C.P.C.

5. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the Applicant that the said
application for Recall of Order dated
16.01.2019 was filed by the second
Opposite party after a lapse of about four
and half (4 1/2) months, however, the same
was entertained by the learned Court and
registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 52 of
2019. Since then, the said matter is pending
for adjudication.

6. The learned Court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Gonda, by registering
the case on 29.05.2019, issued notice to the
first Applicant herein and on the same day
without affording any opportunity of
hearing to him, passed an order whereby
the operation of the Order dated 16.01.2019
was stayed.

7. In the memo of the instant
Application it is alleged that while
returning from the Family Court on
18.08.2022 after attending the Court
proceeding, the Applicant No. 1 was
attacked by four (4) persons who not only
threatened him of dire consequences but
tried to snatch his belongings. It is also
alleged that he was abused by the said
persons and was told not to be seen in the
District Court in future. The submission of
the learned counsel for the applicants is that
the first Applicant got scared by the said
incident,
however,
he
preferred
applications to the concerned police station
as well as to the Superintendent of Police,
Gonda and also on the IGRS Portal,
reporting
the
said
incident
to
the
authorities.

8. The Applicant No.1 preferred a
Transfer Application before the Court of
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gonda,
which
was
registered
as
Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 2025 on
10.04.2025
seeking
transfer
of
the
Miscellaneous Case No. 52 of 2019 from
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the learned Family Court No.1 to any other
Court, levelling serious allegations against
the Presiding Officer hearing the aforesaid
case.

9. The learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gonda vide detailed judgment and
order
dated
24.07.2025
rejected
the
aforesaid
Transfer
Application.
The
operative portion of the Order dated
24.07.2025 is extracted herein-below for
ready reference:

"प्रकीिा वाि िं० 52/2019 प्राचीनतम वाि है,
यभि प्रािी को उक्त प्रकीिा वाि में अपर प्रधान न्यायाधीश, पररवार
न्यायािय, कक्ष िं०- 1, गोंडा द्वारा पाररत भक ी िी आिेश े
कोई क्षुब्धता है, तो वह अपीिीय न्यायािय के मक्ष अग्रेतर
कायावाही करने के भिए स्वतिंत्र है।

इ के अभतररक्त प्रकीिा वाि िं०-52/2019 की
पत्राविी के आिेश-पत्रक के पररशीिन े यह िी प्रकट होता है भक
प्रािी नागेन्र शमाा द्वारा प्रस्तुत मामिे को भवििंभबत करने के भिए
तरह-तरह के िर क प्रया भकये जा रहे हैं, भज कारि उक्त
पत्राविी का भनस्तारि वर्ा 2019 े िेकर अब तक नहीं हो पा
रहा है तिा उक्त पत्राविी में प्रािी द्वारा अनावश्यक रूप े बार-बार
मौका प्रािाना-पत्र िी प्रस्तुत भकये जा रहे हैं। अतः उपरोक्त तथ्य एविं
पररभस्िभतयों े ऐ ा प्रतीत होता है भक प्रािी द्वारा मात्र प्रस्तुत मामिे
को भवििंभबत करने के उद्देश्य े प्रािाना-पत्र 3 ग प्रस्तुत भकया गया
है। ऐ े में प्रािाना-पत्र 3 ग (स्िानान्तरि प्रािाना-पत्र) के किनों के
आधार पर उक्त प्राचीनतम वाि/पत्राविी को अन्तररत भकये जाने का
उभचत आधार नहीं है और ति ्‌नु ार प्रािाना-पत्र 3 ग (स्िानान्तरि
प्रािाना-पत्र) भनरस्त भकये जाने योग्य है।

आदेश

प्रािाना-पत्र 3ग (स्िानान्तरि प्रािाना-पत्र) भनरस्त
भकया जाता है।"

10. It is also stated by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
Applicants that the first applicant filed a
Complaint Case No. 182 of 2013 against
the opposite party No.2 under Section 504,
506, 323, 452, 380 I.P.C., Police Station-
Sarai Aquil, District- Kaushambi. It is
further stated that the opposite party No.2
herein preferred a Petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. before this Court at Allahabad.
The said Petition was registered as
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.
27891 of 2013. Taking into consideration
the statement made by the parties therein
that the parties had settled the matrimonial
dispute and were living together, the Court
vide Order dated 22.08.2014 allowed the
said Application filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 182 of 2013.

11. It is also alleged in the present
transfer petition that despite the aforesaid
settlement, the opposite party No.2 did not
withdraw the Criminal Case No. 142 of
2013 lodged under Section 498-A, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Krishna
Nagar, Lucknow and the Case No. 1812 of
2013 under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act, therefore, the Applicant No.1
preferred contempt application before this
Court at Allahabad which is registered as
Case No. 6504 of 2019. The said
application
is
still
pending
for
consideration.

12. The ground for seeking the transfer
of the pending proceedings having Misc.
Case No. 52 of 2019 from the District
Gonda to Lucknow, as pressed by the
learned counsel for the applicants is that
since the Applicant No.1 is the resident of
Lucknow and the second opposite party
namely Smt. Sarla Sharma is also now
residing at Lucknow and is engaged in a
private job, therefore, it will be convenient
for the parties to pursue the case at
Lucknow. The other ground taken by the
learned counsel for the applicants is that the
12 All. Nagendra Sharma & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
161
Applicant
No.1
has
reasonable
apprehension that if he will go to Gonda to
participate in the proceedings of the Misc.
Case No. 52 of 2019, he would be harmed
by the opposite party No.2.

13. It is also alleged in the instant
transfer petition that the Court concerned at
Gonda is favouring the opposite party No.2
in the pending proceedings.

14. Per contra, the learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite
party No.2 vehemently opposed the instant
transfer application by contending that the
instant transfer petition suffers from
material concealment of facts and as such
the same is liable to be rejected. He
contended that the opposite party No.2 after
coming to know of passing of the ex-parte
judgment and order dated 16.01.2019, by
means of which the marriage between the
Applicant No.1 and opposite party No.2
was declared dissolved; preferred a Recall
Application on 29.05.2019 whereby the
fraudulent conduct of the applicant and the
manner in which he misrepresented the
facts before the Court to obtain the ex-parte
order dated 16.01.2019, was placed before
the Court. The learned Court after taking
into consideration the factual matrix as
narrated by the opposite party No.2 herein,
entertained the said application under Order
IX Rule 13 C.P.C and issued notice to the
applicant herein and stayed the operation of
the Order dated 16.01.2019.

15. It is also vehemently asserted by
the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party No.2 that the
applicants herein filed the instant transfer
petition without disclosing the material fact
that the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by
the learned Family Court was challenged
by the Applicants before this Court by
means of a writ petition having Writ- C No.
6354 of 2022, and the same was dismissed
by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2024.
He further submitted that the present
applicants have not disclosed the fact with
regard to the filing of the First Appeal
Defective No. 83 of 2025 (Nagendra
Sharma versus Smt. Sarla Sharma) on the
same subject matter of dispute before the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, by
them. However, the said appeal, on the
basis of the prayer being made by the
learned counsel for the applicant, was
consigned to record as withdrawn, vide
Order dated 11.04.2025.

16. The argument of the learned
Senior Advocate is that the Regular Case
No.1006 of 2017 (Nagendra Sharma versus
Smt. Sarla Sharma), under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed by
the Applicant No.1 himself before the
Court of learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gonda and now at this stage, when
the proceedings under Order IX Rule 13
C.P.C. in respect of the ex-parte judgment
and order dated 16.01.2019 is almost ripe
for final disposal where the learned Court
at Gonda has entertained the matter and
passed an interim order dated 29.05.2019;
the Applicant has no occasion to pray for
the transfer of the proceeding to the place
of his choice. He further submits that
instant Transfer Application is nothing but
a delaying tactic on the part of the
applicants to stall the pending proceedings
of the Misc. Case No. 52 of 2019.

17. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record. The ground on which the
applicants have sought the transfer of the
proceedings of the Misc. Case No. 52 of
2019, pending under Order IX Rule 13 read
with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, is
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
three-fold. Firstly, the Applicants have
suspicion that they may not get unbiased
trial at Gonda. Secondly, the Applicant
No.1
has
apprehension
of
some
mishappening to him in pursuing the case
at Gonda under the alleged threat from the
side of the opposite party No.2. Thirdly, it
is convenient for the parties to pursue their
case at Lucknow as the applicant is the
resident of Lucknow and now as per him,
the opposite party No.2 has also started
living at Lucknow.

18. Looking to the allegation made by
the applicants herein regarding alleged
inclination of the concerned Court towards
the opposite party No.2; the same is found
totally bald and baseless as there is nothing
on record to establish any bias on the part
of the learned Presiding Officer. A general
statement to the effect that the concerned
court is doing favour to the other side, is
not
sufficient
for
the
purpose
of
establishing any bias. Needles to say that
while dealing with the case, the Presiding
Officer of the Court has to pass several
orders depending upon the facts of the case
and as the circumstances warrant. In that
process, orders adverse to the party cannot
be the reason to doubt the fairness of the
Presiding Officer and the parties do have
legal remedies to challenge the same before
the higher forums.

19. In the instant case, the allegation
of the applicants that the learned Family
Court at Gonda unlawfully entertained the
Application under Order IX Rule 13 read
with Section 151 C.P.C. and the passing of
the order dated 29.05.2019 reflects the bias
on the part of the Court concerned, is not at
all acceptable as the applicant challenged
the said order by means of writ petition
having Writ- C No. 6354 of 2022, inter
alia, praying for the following relief:

"(i) To issue a writ, direction or
order in the nature of Prohibition to refrain
the
O.P.
No.1
from
acting
beyond
jurisdiction by initiating proceedings under
Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151
C.P.C. in Case No. 52 of 2019- Smt. Sarla
Sharma versus Nagendra Sharma &
another for recalling the judgment dated
16.01.2019.

(ii) To issue a writ, direction or
order in the nature of Certiorari to quash/
set aside the ex-parte orders dated
29.05.2019 (Annexure Nos. 1 & 2) and
order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure No.13)
passed by the O.P. No.1 in Case No.52 of
2019- Smt. Sarla Sharma versus Nagendra
Sharma & Another."

The Court did not accept the pleas
of the Applicant/petitioner and dismissed the
Writ- C No. 6354 of 2022 (Nagendra Sharma
And Another versus Court Of Principal Judge
Family Court Gonda And Another) by a
detailed
judgment
and
order
dated
18.10.2024. Thus, with the dismissal of the
said writ petition, the allegation of unlawful
entertainment of the proceeding of the Misc.
Case No. 52 of 2019 by the concerned Court,
has been shattered.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam
Ltd. Versus Girja Shankar Pant and
others; reported in (2001) 1 SCC 182, has
been pleased to hold that mere general
statement will not be sufficient for the
purposes of indication of ill-will. There
must be cogent evidence available on
record to come to the conclusion as to the
existence of any element of bias which has
resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

21. In so far as the perception of threat
from the opposite party No.2 to the
12 All. Nagendra Sharma & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
163
applicant is concerned, the same is not
sustainable as no credible material has been
placed by the applicants before this Court
to substantiate the same and to justify the
prayer for transfer of the proceedings on
that ground. Mere allegation without any
credible evidence cannot be taken as
granted to transfer the proceedings from
one place to another.

22. Coming to the third ground taken
by the applicant for transfer of the
proceeding from the Court at Gonda to
Lucknow that since the applicant is the
resident of Lucknow and now the opposite
party No.2 is engaged in a private job at
Lucknow and is residing there, therefore, it
will be convenient for the parties to pursue
the case at Lucknow, the same is to be seen
in the light of the fact that initially it was
the applicant who initiated the proceeding
at Gonda by filing the case under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gonda and obtained divorce vide ex-parte
judgment and order dated 16.01.2019.
Thereafter, the proceeding under Order IX
Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was
instituted by the opposite party No.2 in the
year 2019 that was registered as Misc. Case
No. 52 of 2019, and since then the
contesting
parties
are
regularly
participating in the said proceeding and the
same is almost ripe up for final disposal.
There is no occasion, at least at this stage to
transfer the said proceeding from the
learned Family Court, Gonda to Lucknow
as that may cause unnecessary delay in the
disposal of the case and would adversely
affect the interest of justice and further, in
the light of the observations made by the
Hon'ble Apex in the case of Abdul Nazar
Madani versus State of T.N. and
Another; reported in (2000) 6 SCC 204, it
is safe to observe that no universal or hardand-fast rules can be prescribed for
deciding the transfer petition which has
always to be decided on the basis of the
facts of each case. The convenience of the
parties does not necessarily mean the
convenience of the applicant alone who
approached the Court seeking transfer of
the pending proceeding on misconceived
notions of apprehension. Convenience for
the purposes of transfer means the
convenience of the parties and of course the
best interest of litigation.

 (emphasis supplied)

23. It is trite in law that transfer of a
case can be made only when the same is
reasonably required under the facts and
circumstances of the case and only if the
allegations made by the applicant seeking
transfer of the proceedings are straightway
discovered or found to be adversely
affecting the interest of justice. Further, a
petition seeking transfer of the case should
not be based on conjectures and surmises
and the onus is on the person who alleges
bias to substantiate that the apprehensions
are reasonable, genuine and justifiable.
There must be cogent evidence available on
record to infer the existence of any element
of bias.

24. Furthermore, in the instant case,
the applicants have come to this Court
seeking
transfer
of
the
restoration
proceeding filed by the second opposite
party herein that emerged pursuant to the
ex-parte decree passed in the suit for
divorce that was filed by the applicant
himself at Gonda and the opposite party
No.2, although being a lady, has not
expressed any inconvenience in pursuing
the said proceeding at Gonda rather
vehemently opposed the instant Transfer
Application. It would not be out of place to
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sumita Singh versus Kumar
Sanjay and another; reported in AIR
2002 SC 396, has held as under:

"3. It is the husband's suit against
the wife. It is the wife's convenience that,
therefore,
must
be
looked
at.
The
circumstances
indicated
above
are
sufficient to make the transfer petition
absolute."

25. The conduct of the applicant to
prefer the Family Court at Gonda for
instituting the proceeding and thereafter to
make request for transfer of the subsequent
proceeding emanating from the same to the
Family Court at Lucknow, is reflective of
his ulterior motive to cause delay in the
proceeding.

26. In view of the facts and the
discussion made hereinabove, this Court
does not find any good ground to accept the
prayer made by the Applicants for transfer
of the proceedings of Misc. Case No.52 of
2019 (Smt. Sarla Sharma versus Nagendra
Sharma) pending before the learned Family
Court at Gonda to any competent Court at
District Lucknow.

27.
Resultantly,
the
present
Application filed by the applicants under
Section 24 of C.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

28. No order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 164
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
Special Appeal No. 394 of 2025

Shri Colonizers And Developers Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Abha Gupta ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(1) Maintainability of Special Appeal against the
Judgment and order passed by Single Judge
while functioning as Commercial Division under
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(2) Appropriate Court/forum for execution of an
award passed in the context of an international
commercial arbitration.

Headnotes
(A) Practice and procedure - Special
Appeal - Impugned Judgment and order
was
passed
by
Single
Judge
while
functioning as Commercial Division under
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Special
Appeal
was
filed
against
it
-
Maintainability. (E-1)
Held : As the learned Single Judge in this case
has passed the order impugned in exercise of
his original jurisdiction under the Act, 2015 read
with the Act, 1996 and not under an appellate
or revisional or supervisory jurisdiction, nor
under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India,
therefore, the said exclusion clause not being
applicable,
this
appeal
is
found
to
be
maintainable. [Para 6]
(B)
Arbitration
law
-
Award
-
Enforceability - Nature of award, not
being a foreign award, but a domestic
award
albeit
in
an
international
commercial arbitration - The facts about
the arbitration, being an international
commercial arbitration and its seat was
within
India
are
not
in
dispute
-
Commercial Courts established at the
district level or Commercial Division of the
High Court, which has jurisdiction to
execute this kind of award. (E-1)
Held : So far as domestic award in a domestic
arbitration is concerned, it is executed through
the commercial courts at the district level. As
regards, foreign awards rendered in the context
of international commercial arbitration also
there is no dispute that in view of the
explanation to section 47, such awards are