Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 493 (ORI)

Kali Prasad Das v. Patra Singh

2004-11-08

A.S.NAIDU

body2004
ORDER 8.11.2004 — This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to transfer M.S. No. 119 of 2002 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge(SD), Bhubaneswar to the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Cuttack. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit. His grievance is three-fold, viz., (1) the presiding offi¬cer of the Court has passed several orders contrary to the provi¬sions of the Code of Civil Procedure by which his rights are affected; (2) the presiding officer is granting adjournments to the defendants liberally, thereby causing unsurmountable hardship to him; and (3) the Bench Clerk of the Court being gained over by the defendants is exhibiting step-motherly attitude towards him. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the first contention is concerned, law is well settled that merely because the presiding officer of a Court has passed certain orders against a party that will not necessarily lead to an inference of bias on the part of the presiding offi¬cer. In the present case, the plaintiff has not challenged any judicial order passed by the presiding officer concerned. As regards the second contention, examination of the records reveals that the plaintiff himself has taken several adjournments in the suit. The orders dated 13.8.2004, 26.8.2004 and 15.9.2004 clearly reveal that on those dates time petitions had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The third contention is not tenable in law. If the Bench Clerk does not act in consonance with the procedure and/or the plaintiff-petitioner has any grievance against the Bench Clerk, it is open to him to bring the said fact to the knowledge of the presiding officer of the Court and/or the District Judge. But on the said ground alone a suit cannot be transferred from one Court to another. 4. On perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition, it appears that the allegations made by the plaintiff-petitioner are imaginary and/or based on suspicion or capricious belief. Such idea based on surmises and conjectures cannot be equated with reasonable apprehension. On such grounds alone the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for transfer of the suit cannot be entertained. In the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Such idea based on surmises and conjectures cannot be equated with reasonable apprehension. On such grounds alone the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for transfer of the suit cannot be entertained. In the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. & ors v. Sri Janaki Ballav Patnaik and another, 1987 (I) OLR 244, this Court observed : “There should be reasonable grounds to justify a plea of apprehension in the mind of a party to a judicial proceeding about the fairness of a judge. Fanciful ideas, imaginary suspi¬cions or capricious belief cannot be equated with reasonable apprehension. It must also be kept in mind that nothing should be done by this Court lightly nor should an undue observation be made which may tarnish the fair image of the subordinate Judici¬ary which, besides being under the administrative and discipli¬nary jurisdiction of the High Court is also in its care and custody. As has so aptly been said by the Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC 2192 - Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another : .......The members of the subordinate judiciary look up to the High Court not only for discipline but also for dignity......” 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC and direct transfer of the suit as prayed for. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to challenge any judicial order passed by the Court below before appropriate forum, it he is aggrieved. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.