Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1020 (MP)

RENU JAIN v. PREETI AGRAWAL

2003-08-27

A.M.SAPRE

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THE revision is filed under Section 115 of CPC by the plaintiff against an order, dated 3-7-2003, passed by learned District Judge, Indore in Case no. 77 of 2003, whereby her application for transfer of suit made under Section 24 of CPC to the learned District Judge is rejected. ( 2. ) PETITIONERs suit in which she is a defendant and which is filed by respondent is pending before VII th Additional District Judge, Indore being civil Suit No. 7-A of 2001. It is this suit, the petitioner wants it to be transferred to some other Court. The transfer is sought because according to petitioner the learned Trial Judge trying the suit has not been conducting the trial fairly. According to petitioner (who is defendant in the suit) the learned Judge has at times obstructed in her depositions and/or has taken up a case in the absence of her lawyer, and/or has made certain comments befitting to the dignity of the court and which were totally uncalled for, it is these incidents which has resulted in a scene in the mind of petitioner that she may not be able to get justice in the trial, if allowed to continue in the Court of VII th Additional district Judge (presided over by Mr. Mudgal ). This issue was then probed by the District Judge on his administrative side while deciding the application under Section 24 of CPC. Comments were called and by impugned order the learned District Judge rejected the application made by the petitioner under section 24 of CPC. It was held that no case whatsoever has been made out for transfer of the case. ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner made vehement attack with reference to manner in which the case of the petitioner was dealt with by the learned Judge and contended that her suit should have been transferred to some other Court. I heard the submissions, its implication and worth. I am afraid that the grounds sought to be urged in support of application for transfer are not factually and legally sustainable. As a consequence, the revision fails and is dismissed. ( 4. I heard the submissions, its implication and worth. I am afraid that the grounds sought to be urged in support of application for transfer are not factually and legally sustainable. As a consequence, the revision fails and is dismissed. ( 4. ) IT is a settled rule of law that party to the lis can not have a judge of his choice but he has to accept the Court where his case is sent for trial in accordance with the requirement of law - such as provisions applicable to decide who will try the suit. This exercise involves, examination of cause of action which determines the place where the suit will be filed (CPC), the value of suit, which determines in which Court it will be tried and lastly the distribution memo which enables the District Judge to ensure as also empower where the suit is to be sent and tried. ( 5. ) THE allegations levelled in this case and which are taken note of supra are not allegations on which the case can be transferred from one Court to another. Firstly, allegations levelled do not have have any merit. Secondly, they are not proved and thirdly, such allegation should not be encouraged for being probed for transfer of any case. The litigation must show restraint in his/her accusation and must exhibit respect to the Court. Equally true that it applies to Court (Judge) as well. However, mere so-called observations even if made during the course of trial - namely that party has a weak case by itself can not be a ground to loose faith on the ability and impartiality of a Judge to decide the case. In every case, one party loose and one succeed. Indeed, it is a rule of law in Courts where out of two adversary one has to suffer the defeat against other. Every party has a feeling till last that he has better case as against the other but one has to loose. ( 6. ) THE litigant should not be so sensitive in their approach. The dignity of the Court needs to be maintained by addressing parliamentary and court language. It results in maintaining confidence of people in judiciary. The defeat even if suffered must be accepted more gracefully than the success. ( 6. ) THE litigant should not be so sensitive in their approach. The dignity of the Court needs to be maintained by addressing parliamentary and court language. It results in maintaining confidence of people in judiciary. The defeat even if suffered must be accepted more gracefully than the success. The remedy provided under the law must then be followed to get rid of the defeat rather that to accuse the judge who brought the defeat to a party. ( 7. ) I, thus, do not find any merit in the revision. It fails and is dismissed in limine. Civil Revision dismissed.