Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 224 (RAJ)

Late Mahant Ganesh Puri Simiriti Trust v. State of Rajasthan & 4 Ors.

2000-02-21

V.S.KOKJE

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against rejection of an application for transfer of a case from the court of learned Civil Judge. by the Distt. Judge, Dausa. 2. From the application for transfer, which was produced for my inspection by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the transfer was sought mainly on the ground that the Officer Incharge of the Case on behalf of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) was inimical towards the petitioner as the petitioner had complained against him to the RSEB and on that basis, departmental enquiry was instituted is against him. But the learned Distt. Judge without discussing these allegations, just rejected the application on the ground that under the Directions of this Court, the suit has to be disposed of within eight months and that would not be possible if the transfer is ordered. It was also observed by the learned Distt. Judge that the apprehension was without any foundation. 3. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the impugned order, I am of the view that this revision petition should be allowed and the Case should be transferred to some other court. When such allegations are made, they are bound to weigh on the mind of the Judge and he would be seriously embarrassed in deciding the case in which there is direct allegation that his landlord is involved on the other side and the petitioner would not be getting justice from him. 4. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned Distt. Judge should have transferred the case and the fact that there was a time bound direction given by this Court for the disposal of the suit. should not have weighed on his mind. Without giving any discredit to the learned trial Judge, this case should have been transferred from his Court so that the principle that justice should not only by done but it should also appear to have been done, is upheld. 5. This revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the Distt. Judge, Dausa is directed to transfer the case to some other Civil Judge at Dausa or of any other place in the Distt.Revision allowed. *******