Abha Kumari Chaudhary v. Arvind Poddar

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamala Kant Upadhyay For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.16820 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 3 12-02-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 18.7.2012, passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 14/2012 by which the District Judge, Muzaffarpur has rejected the transfer petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff for hearing before any other Court apart from the Court of Sub-Judge, V, Muzaffarpur where the Title Suit No. 585/2004 was pending. The allegation made by the petitioner is that she was called to the chamber of Sub-Judge, when she went to the chamber, she felt his ill intention towards her so she left the chamber. It is alleged that the Sub-Judge, V, Muzaffarpur demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- from the well wishers of the petitioner. The District Judge, Muzaffarpur observed that the petitioner had earlier filed Miscellaneous Case No. 23/2010 which was dismissed on 29.12.2010. It has been observed that the repetition of the allegations by filing the present Miscellaneous Case No. 14/2012 is nothing but an attempt to humiliate the Court. The allegation that there was a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the well wishers of the petitioner is vague as it does not mention the name of the person from whom the demand was made, the place where the demand was made, or the time when the demand was 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.16820 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 made and hence, it has been observed that it is not believable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to point out that there are as many as nine transfer petitions pending against the Sub-Judge concerned. This Court called from the report from the District Judge, Muzaffarpur who has stated that out of nine cases including the present one, five of them have been disposed of. It has been argued that there is a complaint from the Bar Association against this officer. Obviously, it is expected that the District Judge must have looked into all the facts including the allegation petition against this officer. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a judgment passed in the case of Pushpa Devi Saraf & Anr. Vs. Jai Narain Parasrampuria & Ors. [(1992) 2 SCC 676]. In the said case there was an order made by the Supreme Court for early disposal of the civil appeal to hear the case on a day to day basis. The Supreme Court had directed that no other case should be taken up until the disposal of the present case and if the District Judge found that the officer could not dispose of the case, he should transfer it to some other Bench. After the order of the Supreme Court on 14th August, 1991, the appellants of the case filed a transfer application before the District Judge to get the case transferred to any other Judge. Several allegations were also levelled regarding the fairness, 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.16820 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 independence and impartiality of the Judge in question. The District Judge held that these allegations were made out of malice. The order of the District Judge was challenged in the High Court of Allahabad where it was upheld by the Court. Thereafter the appellants moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after considering the explanation of the Presiding Officer with respect to the orders passed by him concluded as follows: “In our opinion, a Presiding Officer of a Court should not be put to such an explanation, barring exceptional circumstance.” The Supreme Court also held that the reasons given for transfer of the case pending before the Presiding Officer were not sufficient. The Apex Court concluded that the officer was only following the directions of the Supreme Court in trying the case expeditiously. Eventually, the Supreme Court directed that the District Judge may transfer the case in the interest of the Presiding Officer himself. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the District Judge, Muzaffarpur and leaves it open for the District Judge to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders, if he thinks fit and necessary. It may be observed by this Court that transfer petitions have become the order of the day and parties resort to filing such petitions the 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.16820 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 moment they feel that the case is not in their favour or for the reason that they want to delay the disposal of the suit/appeal. This Court finds that the ground made out by the District Judge, Muzaffarpur for rejecting the transfer petition are justified. This writ application is accordingly, disposed of. Sanjay/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)