# Sanjay Kumar Garg & Anr v. Akhilesh Pratap Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-12
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 4800 of 2023
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-garg-anr-v-akhilesh-pratap-singh-ors-50458
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 -
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order
22 Rule 10 r.w. 151 & 153 , section 24 -
General power of transfer and withdrawal
- order of transfer must reflect application
of
mind
by
the
Court
and
the
circumstances which weighed in taking
the action - If the transfer application
under
Section
24
of
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
has
been
moved
on
the
allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, the
Court
must
be
satisfied
that
the
apprehension of bias or prejudice is
bonafide and reasonable - expression of
apprehension
must
be
proved/substantiated by circumstances
and material placed by such applicant
before the Court - 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. (Para -20,21)

Transfer application filed by respondent no. 2 &
3 - rejected - Presiding Officer relative of
appellant - both are same caste - no faith in
Court - applicant not a party to civil appeal -
application filed by respondent no. 1 for
impleadment - rejected - Rejection of first
transfer
application
brought
on
record
-
objection
filed
by
appellant
in
transfer
application
-
transfer
application
not
maintainable - as moved by a person not party
to proceedings - order does not consider
petitioners' objections - no finding recorded on
petitioner's objection - application accepted
based on facts and circumstances - indicating
application is worthy to be accepted - no
application
of
mind
-
order
passed
mechanically.(Para - 6,15,16, 18,23)

HELD:-Court finds no reason for the District
Judge to disagree with his earlier order dated
28.3.2023, as no fresh material was brought on
record, which may justify the passing of the
order dated 11.4.2023. Order dated 11.4.2023
passed by District Judge in transfer application
contrary to law, set aside. Transfer Application
filed by respondent no.1, rejected.(Para -23)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Sanjay Kumar Garg & Anr. Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh & Ors.
291
decision of Division Bench of this Court in
re: Babulal (supra) and Kamaljeet Singh
(supra), I am of the considered opinion that
the impugned orders being passed by the
competent consolidation authorities do not
suffer from any illegality or perversity,
therefore, those orders may not call for any
interference.

40. Accordingly, the writ petitions are
dismissed being devoid of merit.

41. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 4800 of 2023

Sanjay Kumar Garg & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Akhilesh Pratap Singh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Tanzeel Ahmad, Sri Rakesh Kumar (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Devendra Kumar Yadav, Sri Ashish
Mishra, Sri A.K. Gaur (Sr. Advocate)

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 -
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order
22 Rule 10 r.w. 151 & 153 , section 24 -
General power of transfer and withdrawal
- order of transfer must reflect application
of
mind
by
the
Court
and
the
circumstances which weighed in taking
the action - If the transfer application
under
Section
24
of
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
has
been
moved
on
the
allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, the
Court
must
be
satisfied
that
the
apprehension of bias or prejudice is
bonafide and reasonable - expression of
apprehension
must
be
proved/substantiated by circumstances
and material placed by such applicant
before the Court - 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. (Para -20,21)

Transfer application filed by respondent no. 2 &
3 - rejected - Presiding Officer relative of
appellant - both are same caste - no faith in
Court - applicant not a party to civil appeal -
application filed by respondent no. 1 for
impleadment - rejected - Rejection of first
transfer
application
brought
on
record
-
objection
filed
by
appellant
in
transfer
application
-
transfer
application
not
maintainable - as moved by a person not party
to proceedings - order does not consider
petitioners' objections - no finding recorded on
petitioner's objection - application accepted
based on facts and circumstances - indicating
application is worthy to be accepted - no
application
of
mind
-
order
passed
mechanically.(Para - 6,15,16, 18,23)

HELD:-Court finds no reason for the District
Judge to disagree with his earlier order dated
28.3.2023, as no fresh material was brought on
record, which may justify the passing of the
order dated 11.4.2023. Order dated 11.4.2023
passed by District Judge in transfer application
contrary to law, set aside. Transfer Application
filed by respondent no.1, rejected.(Para -23)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kulvinder Kaur Vs Kandi Friends Education Trust
& ors., 2008(1) AWC 523 :: (2008) 3 SCC 659

2. Amit Agarwal Vs Atul Gupta, 2015(2) AWC
1145

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Tanzeel
Ahmad, learned counsel for the plaintiffspetitioners, Shri A.K. Gaur, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Shri Devendra Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of contesting-respondents and Shri Ashish
Mishra, learned counsel who was requested
to appear on behalf of District Judge,
Aligarh.

2. The present petition under Article
227 has been filed by the petitioners,
challenging the order dated 11.4.2023
passed by the District Judge, Aligarh in
Transfer Application No. 116 of 2023
(Akhilesh Pratap Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar
Garg & others).

3. It is stated in the petition that the
petitioners have instituted a Civil Suit No.
50 of 1998 for specific performance of
contract. The aforesaid suit was dismissed
by
Additional
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division), Court No. 1, Aligarh by
judgment and decree dated 23.9.2022.

4. The petitioners being aggrieved
with the aforesaid judgment and decree
dated 23.9.2022 have preferred a civil
appeal no. 63 of 2022, in the court of
District Judge, Aligarh. After admitting the
appeal, the same was transferred to the
Court of Additional District Judge, Court
No. 1, Aligarh.

5. The petitioners also approached
this Court by filing a petition under Article
227 No. 2161 of 2023 (Sanjay Kumar Garg
& another Vs. Atar Singh & others) for a
direction to the Court concern for early
disposal of civil appeal. The said petition
was finally decided by an order dated
14.3.2023, directing the Court concern to
decide the appeal strictly in accordance
with
law,
without
granting
any
unnecessarily adjournment.

6. When appeal was at final argument
stage, then Devendra Pal Singh & Suraj Pal
Singh who are defendant-respondent in
appeal, moved transfer application no. 83
of 2023 before the District Judge, Aligarh,
stating therein that on 2.3.2023, the
pairokar of the appellant informed the
respondent that in lower Court, the suit was
dismissed, but in the appeal, the respondent
cannot succeed, as the Presiding Officer is
relative of the appellant and both are same
caste. With the said averment, it was stated
in
the
transfer
application
that
the
defendants/respondents have no faith in the
Court concern, as such, the matter be
transferred to some other Court.

7. The plaintiffs/petitioners have filed
their reply to the said transfer application,
stating therein that the argument in the said
appeal was concluded on 23.2.2023. The
transfer application has been filed with an
intention to delay the proceedings and false
allegations have been made in the transfer
application. The District Judge, Aligarh,
after considering the comments submitted
by the Presiding Officer, i.e, Additional
District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh,
dismissed the transfer application by an
order dated 28.3.2023 with the findings that
the transfer application has been moved
only just to delay the disposal of the appeal.

8. It is further stated in the petition
that thereafter application Nos. 15Ga &
17Ga for adjournment of the appeal were
filed on the ground that a new counsel has
been appointed, but the said adjournment
application was rejected by the Additional
District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh by a
detailed order, mentioning therein that the
hearing of the appeal has been concluded
6 All. Sanjay Kumar Garg & Anr. Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh & Ors.
293
and the date was fixed for filing case-law.
The Court below, after rejecting the
aforesaid application, fixed 11.4.2023 for
delivery of the judgment.

9. Thereafter when the matter was
fixed for delivery of the judgment, an
application under Order 22 Rule 10 read
with 151 & 153 of Code of Civil Procedure
was filed by one Akhilesh Pratap Singh for
impleadment in the appeal as respondent,
on the ground that he has purchased the
said property by registered sale deed dated
27.9.2022. The aforesaid application was
rejected by the Additional District Judge,
Court No. 1, Aligarh, by an order dated
6.4.2023.

10. Thereafter an application under
section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure was
filed by Akhilesh Pratap Singh. In
paragraph 3 of the aforesaid application, it
was mentioned that Akhilesh Pratap Sigh
has moved above mentioned application
under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, which was
not accepted by the Presiding Officer, and
as such, the same was filed in Computer
Section, which was to be taken up at 3.00
PM, the Presiding Officer was not available
in the Court and it was informed that the
application will be heard on next day. In
paragraph 4 of the application it was
mentioned that on 7.4.2023, the applicant
and his counsel has seen the appellant no. 1
coming out from the Chamber of Presiding
Officer
and
has
informed
that
his
application will be rejected without hearing
him and the case will be decided in favour
of the appellant, as the Presiding Officer is
of caste of the appellant and he is relative
of the appellant.

11. In the said application, comments
were called for by the District Judge,
Aligarh.
The
Presiding
Officer
has
submitted his comments on 10.04.2023,
denying allegations of application and
specifically mentioning therein that the
application, filed on 6.4.2023 has already
been rejected on 6.4.2023 itself. It was
further stated in the comments that the
allegations in paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the
transfer application are false. The Presiding
Officer has further mentioned that in case
his appeal is transferred to some other
Court, he has no objection for the same.

12. The appellant petitioner has filed
his objection, stating therein that:

(i) Akhilesh Pratap Singh is not
party to the appeal;

(ii) Application filed by Akhilesh
Pratap Singh for his impleadment has
already been rejected;

(iii) Application under section 24
of Code of Civil Procedure can be moved
by a person, who is party to the
proceedings of the Court below;

(iv) Appeal has been expedited
by order of this Court;

(v)
The
earlier
transfer
application No. 83 of 2023 filed on the
same ground has been rejected by the
District Judge, Aligarh by an order dated
28.3.2023.

(vi) Final argument in the appeal
had been concluded and 11.4.2023 is the
date fixed for delivery of the judgment;

13. The District Judge, Aligarh, by
order dated 11.4.2023 without considering
any of the grounds mentioned by the
petitioners in his objection, allowed the
transfer application only stating therein that
considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the transfer application is worthy
to be accepted. With this finding, the
appeal has been transferred from the Court
of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1,
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Aligarh to the Court of Additional District
Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh. The said order
dated 11.4.2023 has been challenged in the
present petition.

14. On behalf of the respondent no.
1/Akhilesh
Pratap
Singh,
a
counter
affidavit has been filed by Yogendra Pal,
alleging himself to be the pairokar of
contesting respondent no. 1. In the counter
affidavit, it is stated that the order passed
by the District Judge, Aligarh in transfer
application no. 83 of 2023 had been
challenged by Devendra Pal Singh by filing
transfer application. It is further stated that the
said transfer application was dismissed as
infructuous, as the case has already been
transferred from the court of Additional
District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh to the
court of Additional District Judge, Court No.
9, Aligarh. The said order has been passed on
1.5.2023. It is further stated in the counter
affidavit that the order dated 6.4.2023 come to
the knowledge of the respondent only when he
received the copy of the present petition. In
paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, the
ground mentioned in paragraph 4 of the
transfer application has been reproduced.

15. Heard learned counsel for the
parties. It is not disputed that the transfer
application No. 83 of 2023 filed by
Devender Pal Singh & Suraj Pal Singh had
been rejected by the District Judge,
Aligarh, by an order dated 28.3.2023. It is
also not disputed that the applicant of
transfer application No. 116 of 2023,
namely, Akhilesh Pratap Singh is not a
party to the civil appeal No. 63 of 2022.
The application filed by Akhilesh Pratap
Singh for his impleadment had been
rejected by the Court concern.

16. The fact of rejection of first
transfer application was clearly brought on
record by the objection filed by the
appellant in transfer application No. 116 of
2023. The said objection was numbered as
Paper No. 10Ga and has also been referred
in the impugned order. It is also not
disputed that in the objection, i.e.. paper
No. 10Ga, the appellant has clearly
mentioned that Akhilesh Pratap Singh is
not party to the proceedings before the
Court below and his application for
impleadment has already been rejected.
With these averments it was specifically
mentioned that the transfer application is
not maintainable, as it has been moved by a
person, who is not party to the proceedings
sought to be transferred from one court to
other Court. The ground of transfer
mentioned in the earlier transfer application
No. 83 of 2023 was also mentioned in the
order dated 28.3.2023. The said order was
also part of the record.

17. Presiding Officer has also clearly
stated in his comments that the hearing of
the appeal had been concluded and the date
11.4.2023 is fixed for delivery of the
judgment. The fact of dismissal of
application for impleadment was also
mentioned in comments of Presiding
Officer.

18. A perusal of the impugned order
dated 11.4.2023 also make it clear that
none of the objection raised by the
petitioners has been considered by the
District Judge, Aligarh. No finding on the
objection of the petitioner has been
recorded by the District Judge, Aligarh,
while allowing the transfer application and
only this much is stated that in facts and
circumstances of the case, the transfer
application is worthy to be accepted.

19. Shri Ashish Mishra, learned
counsel for the High Court has also
6 All. Sanjay Kumar Garg & Anr. Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh & Ors.
295
submitted the instruction provided by the
District Judge, Aligarh. The instruction
submitted by the District Judge, Aligarh
states that keeping in view the allegation
made by the applicant against the officer,
for the purpose of maintaining transparency
and in the interest of justice, the case was
transferred so that there is no possibility of
any adverse effect or serious damage to the
interest of any parties.

20. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a judgment,
reported in 2008(1) AWC 523 :: (2008) 3
Supreme Court Cases 659, Kulvinder
Kaur Vs. Kandi Friends Education
Trust & others especially paragraph 26 for
the proposition that an order of transfer
must reflect application of mind by the
Court
and
the
circumstances
which
weighed in taking the action. Paragraph 26
of the aforesaid judgment cited in (2008) 3
SCC 659 is reads as follows:-

"26. In the case on hand, the
High Court without stating anything
whatsoever
as
to
allegations
and
counter-allegations,
without
considering the reply submitted by the
appellant herein and without recording
any reason/ground passed the impugned
order transferring the case. The learned
counsel for the contesting respondent
no doubt submitted that the Court has
not
observed
anything
since
observations by a High Court one way
or the other might prejudice one of the
parties to the suit. It is true that
normally while making an order of
transfer, the Court may not enter into
merits of the matter as it may affect the
final outcome of the proceedings or
cause prejudice to one or the other side.
At the same time, however, an order of
transfer must reflect application of
mind
by
the
Court
and
the
circumstances which weighed in taking
the action."

21. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has also relied upon a
judgment, reported in 2015(2) AWC
1145 Amit Agarwal Vs. Atul Gupta
for the proposition that if the transfer
application under Section 24 of Code of
Civil Procedure has been moved on the
allegations of bias of Presiding Officer,
the Court must be satisfied that the
apprehension of bias or prejudice is
bonafide
and
reasonable.
The
expression of apprehension must be
proved/substantiated by circumstances
and material placed by such applicant
before
the
Court.
The
relevant
paragraphs 23 to 27 of the aforesaid
judgment are reproduced herein below:-

"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
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 Calcutta 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 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,
6 All. Sanjay Kumar Garg & Anr. Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh & Ors.
297
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."

22. Section 24 of Code of Civil
Procedure reads as under:-

"Section 24. General power of
transfer and withdrawal.

(1) On the application of any of
the parties and after notice to the parties
and after hearing such of them as desired
to be heard, or of its own motion without
such notice, the High Court or the District
Court may at any stage

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or
other proceeding pending before it for trial
or disposal to any Court subordinate to it
and competent to try or dispose of the
same, or

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or
other proceeding pending in any Court
subordinate to it, and

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(ii) transfer the same for trial or
disposal to any Court subordinate to it and
competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii) retransfer the same for trial
or disposal to the Court from which it was
withdrawn.

(2) Where any suit or proceeding
has been transferred or withdrawn under
sub-section (1), the Court which is
thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or
proceeding may, subject to any special
directions in the case of an order of
transfer, either retry it or proceed from the
point at which it was transferred or
withdrawn.

(3) For the purposes of this
section,

(a) Courts of Additional and
Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be
subordinate to the District Court;

(b) "proceeding" includes a
proceeding for the execution of a decree or
order.

(4) The Court trying any suit
transferred or withdrawn under this section
from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the
purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a
Court of Small Causes.

(5) A suit or proceeding may be
transferred under this section from a Court
which has no jurisdiction to try it. "

23. Perusing the records it is clear that
the District Judge, Aligarh, while passing
the order dated 11.4.2023 has not at all
applied his mind and has not recorded any
finding on the objection made by the
petitioners regarding maintainability of the
application under section 24 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Section 24 of C.P.C.
provides that the application for transfer
may be filed by a party to the proceedings.
The applicant of transfer application no.
116 of 2023 was not party to the
proceedings, i.e. civil appeal no. 63 of
2022, as such his application was not
maintainable. The District Judge, Aligarh
has recorded only a conclusion that in facts
and circumstances, the application is
worthy to be accepted. This clearly shows
that
while
passing
the
order
dated
11.4.2023, the District Judge has not at all
applied his mind, and in a mechanical way,
the order dated 11.4.2023 has been passed.
When the same District Judge on the same
allegation has rejected the earlier transfer
application no. 83 of 2023, this Court finds
that there was no reason with the District
Judge to disagree with his own earlier order
dated 28.3.2023 especially when no fresh
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material was brought on record before the
District Judge, Aligarh which may justify
the passing of the order dated 11.4.2023.
Thus, the order dated 11.4.2023 passed by
the District Judge, Aligarh in transfer
application being contrary to law, is set
aside. Transfer Application No. 116 of
2023 filed by the respondent no.1, namely
Akhilesh Pratap Singh is rejected. The
present petition is allowed.

24. No order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 298
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 4925 of 2023

Heera Lal Chhabra ...Petitioner
Versus
Nawal Kishore Agarwal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Shikhar Tripathi, Sri Shrey Sharma

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 -
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order
XVII Rule 1 - Court may grant time and
adjourn hearing , Order XVII Rule 2 -
engagement of pleader of party in another
Court
would
not
be
ground
for
adjournment - No litigant has a right to
abuse the procedure provided in the CPC.
(Para - 6,7,12)

(B) Words and Phrases - The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - proviso to Order XVII
Rule 1 CPC - `justifiable cause' - a cause
which is not only `sufficient cause' as
contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Order
XVII CPC - but a cause which makes the
request for adjournment by a party during
the hearing of the suit - beyond three
adjournments unavoidable and sort of a
compelling necessity - like sudden illness
of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer
- death in the family of any one of them -
natural calamity like floods, earthquake,
etc. in the area where any of these
persons reside - an accident involving the
litigant or the witness or the lawyer on
way to the court and such like cause.
(Para -12)

Plaintiff-respondent filed SCC Suit - date fixed -
defendant counsel was busy in some other court
, unable to appear - Court passed ex-parte order
-- filed recall application - rejected - Petitionerdefendant preferred SCC Revision - dismissed -
approximately 22 adjournments sought by
defendant-petitioner . (Para - 1,9,11)

HELD:-Adjournment to be granted on bonafide
reasons and unavoidable circumstances for
limited occasion not for many occasion .
Absence of counsel or his engagement in other
Court cannot be ground for adjournment
coupled with fact that several adjournments
were
earlier
sought.
No
interference
in
impugned orders. (Para - 15,16)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. The Secy., Dept. of Horticulture, Chandigarh
& Anr. Vs Raghu Raj , JT 2008 (11) SC 397

2. Gayathri Vs M. Girish , 2016 0 SC 587

3. Shiv Cotex Vs Tirgum Autoplast Ltd. , 2011
(9) SCC 678

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shrey
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that earlier plaintiff-respondent