SMT. SUNITA PRASHAR Vs. CANARA BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the transfer application moved by the petitioner, seeking transfer of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 48/2017 titled as Canara Bank v. Sunita Prashar and others from the Court of Ms. Neerja Kulwant Kalson, Additional District Judge, Panchkula to any other Court of competent jurisdiction, has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent-Bank, learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Panchkula has granted ad interim injunction qua stay of auction of the properties of the petitioner vide order dated 20.05.2017. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2017, the respondent-Bank has preferred an appeal i.e. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 48/2017 titled as Canara Bank v. Sunita Prashar and others , which is pending adjudication before Ms. Neerja Kulwant Kalson, Additional District Judge, Panchkula. He has argued that the Manager of the respondent-Bank namely Rajesh Sharma had a conversation with some senior advocate in this High Court, who is closely related to the Presiding Officer and in this manner, the Bank is trying to persuade the Presiding Officer to decide the appeal in favour of the Bank and against the interest of the plaintiff-petitioner. Therefore, there is a bona fide apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that justice may not be delivered to her.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.