CHETAK CONSTRUCTION LTD. Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Indore rejecting a prayer for transfer of suit from one Court to another. A Civil Suit was filed in the Court of VIIIth Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore. On 19.4.93 an ex -parte injunction was passed by Shri A.R. Dhruv, the Xth Additional Judge to the Court of Dist. Judge, Indore as the Presiding Officer of the Court of VIIIth Addl. Judge to Dist. Judge, Indore was not available and the suit was transferred to his Court. 29.4.93 was the date fixed for bi -parte hearing of the application for temporary injunction. On 28.4.93 on the eve of the date of hearing, an application was moved before the trial Court praying for stay of further proceedings in the case, in view of pendency of an application said to have been filed on 27.4.93 under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants before the District Judge for transfer of the case from the Court of Shri A.R. Dhruv. It was stated in this application that the defendants had no faith in Shri Dhruv. On 29.4.93, Shri Dhruv adjourned the case to 1.5.1993, obviously, awaiting the result of the transfer application. On 30.4.93, the case was sent to the District Judge on a requisition being received. The next date in the case was 1.5.1993. As the record was sent to the District Judge, no further action was possible on that day. The record was received back on 11.5.93 and the case was fixed before Shri Dhruv on 12.5.93. In the meanwhile the learned Dist. Judge by an order dated 7.5.1993 passed in M.J.C. No. 220/93 dismissed the application for transfer by a detailed order. All the allegations made against Shri Dhruv were negatived and the transfer application was dismissed on its merits and the trial was ordered to be continued before him.

(2.) ON 12.5.93, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C was moved on behalf of the defendants and certain documents and affidavits were filed and the case was fixed on 15.5.93 for reply and arguments. On 14.5.93, an application under Order 11 Rule 18 C.P.C. was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter on various dates, various applications were moved and on some dates the plaintiff prayed himself for adjournments. Ultimately after several applications being filed and on several dates the Court showing anxiety at the delay in hearing the matter on temporary injunction, ultimately on 2.12.93 with great difficulty arguments could be commenced on the applications for grant and vacation of temporary injunction. Arguments were heard on 2.12.93, 3.12.93 and 6.12.93. The case was fixed for orders on the application on 11.12.93. On 11.12.93, the learned Judge stated in the proceedings that orders were not being passed because a letter requesting the District Judge for transferring the case from his Court as sent by him and the orders on that were not received till that date.

(3.) THE learned District Judge passed an order transferring the case without there being anything on record to justify such an action specially when he had passed a lengthy and detailed order rejecting the same prayer made on behalf of the defendants as long back as 7.5.93. Even while exercising suo motu powers, the Dist. Judge has to act according to certain norms and cannot act arbitrarily. In the circumstances of the case it was expected that cogent reasons had to be stated by the learned Judge asking for transfer of the case from his Court to some other Court and by the learned District Judge while accepting that request, especially, when he had turned down the request for transfer of the case earlier. It is true that the District Judge transferring a case under his suo motu powers is not expected to give detailed reasons for every such transfer but this particular case had a peculiar background of judicial order on the same subject having been passed. It was also not a case of transferring a bunch or class of cases from one Court to the other generally. Only one case was transferred at the request of a Judge, who in the meanwhile had been dealing with the case and had actually reserved it for orders on applications under order 39 C.P.C. Such use of powers of transfer may encourage unscrupulous litigants in bullying and brow -beating Judges by creating a situation in which a Judge finds himself in an extremely embarrassing position. Not only that such transfers of cases which in reality are on the ground of allegations of loss of faith in the Judge, though clothed in the garb of administrative exigency, have to be discouraged and the Judges who are victims of such tactics deserve to be encouraged by asking them to do their duty, by hearing the cases without fear or favour despite the obstacles put in by the litigants in the discharge of their duties. A Judge cannot afford these days to be hypersensitive in such matters and cannot at the first sign of hostility from a litigant or a lawyer feel embarrased or be cowed down into seeking transfer of the case from his Court to some other Court. If this is allowed to be done, in course of time, some Judges may start avoiding difficult and complicated cases on the ground of embarrassment, which would not be a healthy sign, for judicial administration.