RAMAKRISHNA DONGERSA Vs. DILIP KRISHNAJI TILVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard both the learned advocates at considerable length principally because this is a petition whereby a transfer has been sought in respect of the pending revision petition from the Court of the learned District Judge, Belgaum, to some other appropriate forum. The petitioner has stated that he has challenged an order passed in H. R. C. proceedings against him through a revision petition and that between July and Aug., 1995, the matter was adjourned on four occasions for various reasons as set out in the order sheet. On 25-7-1995, the learned advocate applied for continuing the interim stay order until disposal of the petition. The application came to be opposed by the other side and the learned trial Judge rejected the application and vacated the stay. A grievance is sought to be made because of the fact that the ground pleaded on that date for adjournment was because the petitioners learned advocate was suffering from eye trouble and the two-fold submission canvassed is firstly that under normal circumstances, the application for some time ought not to have been turned down, but more importantly that in the background in which the application came to be rejected, that it is indicative of a degree of bias on the part of the learned presiding Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for continuation of the stay and the other side had agreed not to execute the decree until 2-8-1995, after which the matter was adjourned to 16-8-1995. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a revision petition to this Court wherein the submission canvassed was to the effect that the proceeding before the trial Court would virtually be rendered infructuous if appropriate interim orders are not passed and this Court while disposing of the petition on 7-8-1995, continued the interim stay till the disposal of the revision petition and directed the learned District Judge to dispose of the main matter within three months from that date. I have referred to this background of the case because to my mind, it is of some significance. Thereafter, on 14-8-1995, the present petition has been filed before this Court and the petitioner states that ho apprehends that he will not receive justice at the hands of the learned District Judge and he therefore, prays that the hearing of the petition be transferred to some other forum. Petitioners learned advocate points out to me that there are four other learned Judges of competent jurisdiction available in Belgaum alone and that therefore, the matter could easily be heard by any one of the other Courts and he submits that he is willing to argue the matter on whatever date that is set down for hearing.

(2.) The main thrust of the arguments canvassed by the petitioners learned advocate arises from the fact that he points out that there is a large number of similar revision petitions pending against eviction orders passed in HRC proceedings, that there is no admission required before the District Court and that consequently, the grant of stay is almost automatic in all such cases until disposal of the petition. He submits that there was no special reason why this petition should have been given differential treatment in so far as the interim stay order was granted only for a few days on each occasion and he submits that in this background, the petitioner reasonably apprehends that all is not well with regard to this litigation, in effect, what he submitted is that there was no special reason why this particular revision petition should have been picked out for the grant of stay on each occasion and furthermore, that the learned District Judge having vacated the saty abruptly on 25-7-1995, compounds the fears of the petitioner that if the matter is heard, he is unlikely to get absolute justice from that forum.

(3.) This Court called for a report from the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge in his report, has stated that the record of the lower Court which has been called for by him indicates that the petitioner and his learned advocate are in the habit of making multifarious applications for adjournment and adopting various other dilatory tactics. The learned Judge refers to the fact that as many as 60 adjournments were taken before the lower) Court and that even when the matter was fixed) for hearing, the same did not go on for several; months. He submits that it is in this background that he had refused adjournments and the grant of further time, because the matter is hotly contested one and the other side had vehemently opposed the grant of adjournment for reasons set out by them. The learned t Judge has also indicated in his report that there is absolutely no ground to justify the transfer of the matter and that allegations having been made against the learned Judge which are baseless, that appropriate contempt proceedings be instituted against the petitioner and his learned advocate. I need to record that as far as this last recommendation is concerned, that the petitioners learned advocate submitted in the course' of his arguments that it is clearly indicative of a high degree of anger on the part of the learned District Judge and he submits that this ground alone,is sufficient for this Court to direct a transfer. As far as this last aspect is concerned, I do not share either the anxiety or the views expressed by the petitioners learned advocate because to my mind, instances do occur before Courts where a Judge is required to come down strongly if he feels that either dilatory or mischievous tactics are being adopted and if the learned District Judge rightly felt that the allegations made against him were unjustified, it was within his competence to recommend to the High Court that contempt proceedings should be instituted against not only the petitioner but his learned advocate. It has unfortunately become rather common place to indiscriminately make allegations against judicial officers. In those of the cases where the allegations are substantiated or those of the cases where the allegations are either genuine or warranted, a party and his learned advocate are well within their rights. However, I need to point out that if the allegations are not substantiated and if it is found that there is absolutely no justification in them, to my mind, it would constitute a case of contempt where action is warranted. Under these circumstances, the indignation of the learned District Judge is righteous indignation and I do not see the least bit of objection to his having made that recommendation.