Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 537 (CAL)

Reba Dey v. Samir Ranjan Dey

2010-05-17

JAPAN KUMAR DUTT

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE plaintiff in the suit concerned has filed the present application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of such suit from the First Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat to any other Court for disposal of the said suit. 2. THE application has been contested by the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1. The learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 2. submits that the opposite party No. 2 is in different to the proposition of transfer of the suit and it does not matter to the said opposite party if such suit is transferred or not to any Court. 3. THE sum and substance of the allegations made in the application is that a person by the name of Gopal Chandra Ghosh came to the house of the petitioner and disclosed that if the petitioner wants to get a decree in the said suit the same can be arranged and for such purpose he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. IT further appears that the said alleged Gopal Chandra Ghosh had been to the house of Mr. Tapan Kumar Roy , who is the son-in-law of the petitioner, and brought the said Tapan Kumar Roy to the house of the petitioner and demanded the aforesaid sum of Rs. 50,000/- for ensuring that the verdict of the said suit goes in favour of the petitioner. Today, when this application is being heard, the said Mr. Tapan Kumar Roy, son-in-law of the petitioner, is present in Court as submitted by the petitioner's learned Advocate. 5. LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that in another case similar kind of allegation was made by another litigant and for such purpose he refers to annexure P-1 of the application. 6. THE opposite party No 1 has filed an affidavit- in-opposition in the present case and is contesting the application. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has cited a judgment reported at (2008)3 SCC 659 and has referred to Paragraph -23 of the said reports in support of his submission that if there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court in which the suit is pending the suit should be transferred to another Court. 7. 7. LEARNED Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 has referred to a judgment reported at AIR 1988 Gujrat 63 and has referred to Paragraph - 4 of the said reports in support of his submission that the transfer of a case from one Court to another is a pretty serious matter because it casts indirectly doubt on the integrity or competence of the Judge from whom the matter is transferred. This should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause, and mere presumptions or possible apprehension could not and should not be the basis of transferring a case from one Court to another. 8. THIS Court has asked the learned Advocate for the petitioner to. furnish the-particulars of the alleged Gopal Chandra Ghosh. The petitioners learned Advocate clearly submitted that no such particulars can be furnished. Even the address of the said Gopal Chandra Ghosh could not be furnished by the petitioner. Even a bare description of the appearance of the said Gopal Chandra Ghose could not be furnished by the learned Advocate for the petitioner since Mr. Tapan Kumar Roy, son-in law of the petitioner is present in Court today, the said learned Advocate for the petitioner asked Sri Tapan Kumar Roy if any particulars of the said Gopal Chandra Ghosh could be furnished since Mr. Tapan Kumar Roy is looking after the case on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this Court on instruction from his client that no such particulars can be furnished. 9. IN such circumstances, this Court is left no option but to hold that the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made absolutely on vague allegations. 10. ON the basis of such vague allegations, devoid of any particulars of the alleged Gopal Chandra Ghosh, this Court is of the view that it would not be proper to transfer the suit as held by the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the above reports that mere presumptions or possible apprehension should not be the basis of transferring a case from one Court to another. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Kulwinder Kaur case (supra) has been pleased to observe that if there is any reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court, in that event, the case may be transferred from one Court to another but in the present case it can hardly be said that there can be any reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant on the basis of such vague allegations, as indicated earlier, and particularly when such allegations are devoid of any particulars. 11. IN the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the application under section 24 of the C.P.C. The application is dismissed. 12. AFFIDAVIT in reply filed in Court today be kept on record.