JAGANNATH SEN AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. EVA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against Order No. 19 dated 16-7-94 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Misc. Case No. 2594 of 1993 arising out of a petition under Sec. 10 of the City Civil Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

(2.) At the very outset, it is necessary to point out that the approach taken by the learned Chief Judge that Sec. 10 of the said Act is almost similar to that of the order to be passed under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not free from doubts. Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates wider amplitude of exercise of powers for transfer in fit and proper cases but under Sec. 10 of the said Act, the provision is much more circumscribed and it contemplates only the distribution of the business of the City Civil Court and to obviate any possibility of carriage of proceeding in a pending suit of which a Judicial Officer is interested such provision can be invoked. In the instant case, it appears that no such allegation threadbare has been made that the concerned Judicial Officer is interested in the proceeding. On the contrary, in the impugned order, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court has opined that the grievances of the petitioners can be pinned down to one aspect that some of his applications were not entertained by the learned Court concerned and as such, the same cannot be said to be the reasonable apprehension.

(3.) Mr. Sahoo, appearing for the petitioners, has drawn the attention of this Court to a reported decision in the case of Gorachand Das Vs. Smt Dipali Das, 1976(2) CLJ 380 , in order to contend that cumulative effect of the carriage of the proceeding is required to be assessed as to whether that creates any apprehension in the mind of the litigants. After all, in a litigation there may be many reverses. It has been stated that there may be reverses in many battles but ultimately a party may win the war. Similarly, just because the Court concerned in its discretion has passed certain orders which cannot satisfy a party litigant that cannot be a ground of formation of reasonable apprehension. The Court is required to mete out even-handed justice and it is impossible for the Court to satisfy both the parties unless the Court is prejudiced and biased in favour of any of the parties on extraneous considerations.