Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1480 (RAJ)

Suncity Projects Private Limited v. Sanjay Kawatra S/o Shri Omprakash Kawatra

2025-08-19

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner/ plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short ‘the learned District Judge’), on Civil Transfer Application No.112/2025, whereby the learned District Judge ordered to transfer the Civil Suit No.14/2024 (95/2024), from the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-II to the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner /plaintiff preferred a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction on 23.02.2024 and the same was assigned to the learned Addl. & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-II and was numbered as 14/2024 (95/2024). Along-with the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff also preferred an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. 3. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the respondent/ defendant No.5- Atar Singh Bisoya filed an application under section 24 CPC before the learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. 4. After service of summons of the transfer application upon the petitioner/ plaintiff, the learned District Judge vide its order dated 07.07.2025 allowed the transfer application and ordered to transfer the case from the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-II to the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. 5. Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner plaintiff submitted that along-with the plaint the petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC which remained pending for more than one year and on request made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff when the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolian-II asked the counsel appearing for the defendants/ respondents for making arguments on the temporary injunction application, they preferred the application for transfer of the case to some other Court. Counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the original land holders/defendants transferred the suit property in the name of respondents/ defendants No. 1 & 5 and in view of the aforesaid facts subsequently they were impleaded as party defendants. Counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the original land holders/defendants transferred the suit property in the name of respondents/ defendants No. 1 & 5 and in view of the aforesaid facts subsequently they were impleaded as party defendants. Looking to the fact that the defendants are transferring, alienating the suit property and are getting third party rights, there was a grave urgency shown by the petitioner/ plaintiff for disposal of the temporary injunction application. 6. Counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff further submitted that in the application filed under Section 24 CPC for transferring of the suit proceedings, the applicant/ respondent No.5- Atar Singh Bisoya has leveled serious allegations against the Presiding Officer and so also the Officer of the Company, though there is no substantial evidence as regards such allegations. Counsel further submitted that notices on the application were issued on 30.05.2025 for 07.07.2025 which came to be served upon the petitioner /plaintiff on 05.06.2025. After issuance of the notices, 07.07.2025 was fixed as a first date for hearing on the transfer application. Counsel further submitted that by the time the counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff reached the court below with the reply to the application, the transfer application was allowed and no proper opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner/ plaintiff. 7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff further submitted that the defendants /respondents were allowed ample opportunity to argue on the temporary injunction application, however, they for one reason or the other were avoiding the disposal of the temporary injunction application and when the Presiding Officer in view of the fact that the temporary injunction application is pending since long and he made efforts to decide the same at the earliest, the respondent/ defendant No.5- Atar Singh Bisoya without there being any substance in the allegations averred in the application, approached the District Judge for transfer of the suit proceedings to other Court. She further submitted that no legal or valid grounds subsist for making an application to transfer the suit proceedings to other Court and the learned District Judge has also not made the inquiry as regards to the allegations leveled in the application for transfer against the Presiding Officer as well as the Officer of the petitioner- Company. She further submitted that no legal or valid grounds subsist for making an application to transfer the suit proceedings to other Court and the learned District Judge has also not made the inquiry as regards to the allegations leveled in the application for transfer against the Presiding Officer as well as the Officer of the petitioner- Company. She also submitted that the transferring a case from one Court to other on an application with the allegations without there being any substantial evidence is a stigma for the Presiding Officer. 8. To support the submissions, counsel appearing for the petitioner /plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- A. Jitendra Singh v. bhanu Kumari & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 130 delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court; B. Balraj Singh & Anr. v. Ajit Singh, 2005 AIR Raj. 120, delivered by the Rajasthan High Court; C. Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, (Writ-B No. 1885 of 2023) decided on 20.08.2023 delivered by the High Court of Allahabad; and D. M/s. Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. v. Aditya Singhvi & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 108/2021) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court on 03.02.2021 along-with three other connected writ petitions. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by other counsels, appearing for the respondents/ defendants submitted that the chronology of the suit proceedings speaks that the petitioner /plaintiff himself was delaying the disposal of the temporary injunction application as is evident from the order-sheets of the Court. He further submitted that upon transfer of the Presiding Officer, the process for disposal of the temporary injunction application was accelerated which cause suspicion in the mind of the respondent/ defendant No.5- Atar Singh Bisoya and therefore, he moved an application for transfer of the case. He further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner/ plaintiff by transfer of the case from one Court to other. He also submitted that the petitioner /plaintiff has filed the suit after 17 years on the basis of photocopy of the agreement. Counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submitted that as per the contents of the order passed by the learned District Judge, the Presiding Officer himself has given his consent for transfer of the case. 10. He also submitted that the petitioner /plaintiff has filed the suit after 17 years on the basis of photocopy of the agreement. Counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submitted that as per the contents of the order passed by the learned District Judge, the Presiding Officer himself has given his consent for transfer of the case. 10. To support the submissions, the counsel appearing for the respondents / defendants has placed reliance upon following judgments:- A. Lalita Rajya Lakshmi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. MANU/BH/0069/1957 decided by the High Court of Patna on 17.11.1955; B. Prem Prakash Mishra v. J.P. Bansal , MANU/RH/1251/1988 , decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.05.1988; C. Pushpa Devi Saraf & Anr. v. Jai Narain Parasrampuria & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 1133 , delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court; D. Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti & Ors., 2023 (1) RLW 353 (Raj.) 11. In the rejoinder, counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that as regards the maintainability of the suit proceedings, the respondents/ defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint. The application of the respondents/defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. 12. Counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submitted that the respondents/ defendants are in process of challenging the order of dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 13. Considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 14. From the pleadings it is borne out that the suit for specific performance, cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction was filed on 23.02.2024 along-with the application for temporary injunction. After institution of the suit, the subject land is said to have been transferred to third party and because of which the plaint was amended and the subsequent purchasers were arrayed as defendants. After institution of the suit, the subject land is said to have been transferred to third party and because of which the plaint was amended and the subsequent purchasers were arrayed as defendants. In view of the fact that the suit is for specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed and after institution of the suit, the subject land at a point of time was transferred in the name of third party, clearly speaks that the urgency shown by the petitioner/ plaintiff for disposal of the temporary injunction application is justified and the efforts of the trial court for disposal of the temporary injunction application by asking the respondents/ defendants to make their arguments in no manner can be said to be unreasonable. 15. On perusal of the order-sheets, the Court finds that since February 2025, the respondents/ defendants are seeking time to file amended reply to the temporary injunction application and they have been allowed time for filing the amended reply to the temporary injunction application on ten occasions. On 26.05.2025, the parties sought time to make submissions on the temporary injunction application and the matter was adjourned for 27.05.2025. On 27.05.2025 as per the contents of the order of the trial court, the counsels appearing for the respondents/ defendants tried to avoid hearing on the temporary injunction application and they created unwarranted scene in the Court. 16. In the application filed under Section 24 CPC for transfer of the case, the applicant/ defendant No.5- Atar Singh Bisoya, has made serious allegations against the Presiding Officer of collusion of the Presiding Officer with the Officer of the petitioner- Company without there being any substantial evidence. The efforts of the Court for expeditious disposal of any temporary injunction application pending for the last more than one year can never be said to be a collusion of the Presiding Officer with the Officer of the petitioner/plaintiff- Company because the result of the temporary injunction application can be in favour of any party and the aggrieved party could have made challenge to such order. 17. The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis of application for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 24 CPC, the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. 17. The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis of application for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 24 CPC, the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved/ substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer. Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case. In the matters where reckless false allegations are attempted to be made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the approach of court must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to be true on their face value, in the entirety of circumstances, can be believed to be correct, by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. If the allegations are apparently false, strict approach is the call of the day so as to maintain not only discipline in the courts of law but also to protect judicial officers and maintain their self esteem confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice. The allegation of bias by mere fact of an adverse order is not sufficient to justify the transfer unless it also substantiated by relevant material, which is not the case in hand. 18. The respondents/ defendants in their application filed under Section 24 CPC have made the following averments:- 19. The aforesaid averments speak of the allegations against the Presiding Officer, though there is no substantial evidence placed on record by the applicant/ defendant No.5- Atar Singh Bisoya to support the allegations. Merely making an allegation of this nature in itself does not become the ground for transfer of the case. Transfer of a case on such kind of allegations without there being any substantial evidence and without making any inquiry into the allegations casts stigma on the integrity of the Presiding Officer, which cannot be permitted. If the applicant is making such allegations then it is his obligation to produce substantial evidence to support the allegations. Transfer of a case on such kind of allegations without there being any substantial evidence and without making any inquiry into the allegations casts stigma on the integrity of the Presiding Officer, which cannot be permitted. If the applicant is making such allegations then it is his obligation to produce substantial evidence to support the allegations. If cases are allowed to transfer merely on such allegations without there being any substantial evidence then the litigants would get encouraged in delaying the proceedings by filing such application on frivolous allegations. 20. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balraj Singh & Anr. (supra) has observed in paras 28, 29 and 30 as under:- “28. This transfer application has been filed by the obstructer with the prayer that the Execution Petition No. 18/03 Balraj Singh v. Raj. Industrial Distributors Delhi alongwith petition No. 2/04 Ajit Singh v. Balraj Singh be transferred from the Court of Civil Judge (SD) Sri Ganganagar to any other court of competent jurisdiction. 29. In my considered opinion, the ground? on which transfer of the case has been sought by the obstructer do not exist and further, they are not good and sufficient grounds. 30. The transfer of a case from one Court to another indirectly casts doubt on the competence and integrity of the Judge from whom the case is sought to be transferred. Mere presumptions or possible apprehensions are not sufficient therefor; only good and sufficient grounds, clearly set out in the order, may justify the transfer.” 21. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:- “This Court after perusing the record as well as the precedent law is of the opinion that the order-sheets and the record do not point out any such thing which could be said to come within the ambit of a reasonable apprehension of the petitioners of not having a fair trial. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any order on merits it is certainly open for them to challenge the same before the appropriate Court but just because the Court has reflected an adverse order it does not mean that the interest of justice shall not be taken care of. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any order on merits it is certainly open for them to challenge the same before the appropriate Court but just because the Court has reflected an adverse order it does not mean that the interest of justice shall not be taken care of. Moreover, the decision of multiple applications together after proper hearing cannot be said to be prejudicial to either of the parties by any stretch of imagination. The present case does not come in the ambit laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwinder Kaur (supra).” 22. The High Court of Patna in the case of Lalita Rajya Lakshmi & Ors. (supra) has observed in para 16 as under:- “16. Now, the question is, whether all the circumstances stated above taken together, justify the cases to be transferred to another court, as prayed for by the petitioners. In support of their respective contentions, the parties have placed before me several decisions in order to show what are good grounds, and, what art not sufficient grounds for, transfer. Such cases are: Mohur Singh v. Ghuriba 15 W. R. (P. C.) 8 (at P. 10) (A) ; Jawahir Kumar Devi v. Naresh Chandra, AIR 1920 Pat. 365 : 1 Fat.L. T. 389 (B); Naramma v. Rengamma, AIR 1926 Mad. 359 (C); (Khuaja Ahad Shah v. Mt. Ayshan Begum, AIR , 1923 Lah 564 (D); and, Binode Behary Banerjee v. King-Emperor 5 Pat L.T. 63 : (AIR 1925 Pat. 115) (E) ). From the above cases, the following grounds of transfer, inter alia are well established. They are: (1) When the superior court is satisfied that the proceedings in one court constitute an abuse of the process of the courts; (2) when it is clear that some prejudice has been created, and that a fair hearing, and an impartial adjudication, could not be reasonably expected, even though such a state of things has been brought about by the conduct of the very party applying for the transfer; (3) where there is any reasonable ground -for supposing that a prejudice against a party's pleader has in any manner or measure affected the Judicial attitude of the court towards the petitioner, or his case; and (4) if a party feels that he is not likely to have a fair trial before a particular court. In such, a case, however, it is true that the reasonable apprehension on the part of the litigant should receive consideration, but at the same time the apprehension must be such as a reasonable man might reasonably be expected to have.” 23. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Prakash Mishra (supra) has observed in para 2 as under:- “2. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the order dated December 10, 1987 and the order passed by S.C. Agrawal, J. in the revision decided on January 20, 1988, and also the various order-sheets passed from time to time in the proceedings of the Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 300/87. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but seem to be done. It is not necessary for the petitioner in such cases to prove any definite bias against the Presiding Judge but it is enough if the petitioner can show that he has genuine apprehension that be would not get justice from the Court in which his case is pending. In the present case, the District Judge had appointed a Commissioner to submit the factual report on December 10, 1987. The order-sheet of December 10, 1987 itself shows that the report of the Nasir had not been received and before receiving the report of the Nasir, learned District Judge passed an order that the possession of the premises in question would remain with the Commissioner. This order passed by the learned District Judge was totally wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. As already mentioned above the plaintiff had filed a revision against the above order and Agrawal J., while allowing the revision clearly took the view that the above order passed by the learned District Judge was absolutely wrong and without jurisdiction. Not only that Agrawal J., while deciding the revision also gave a direction to give possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff as according to the report of the Nasir he had been given possession over the property in question in execution of the ex-parte decree passed in his favour. Not only that Agrawal J., while deciding the revision also gave a direction to give possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff as according to the report of the Nasir he had been given possession over the property in question in execution of the ex-parte decree passed in his favour. This sort of conduct from the part of the learned District Judge coupled with other order- sheets in the case clearly go to show that the petitioner is justified in alleging that he has genuine apprehension in his mind that he would not get justice from the Court of Shri J.P. Bansal, District Judge, Kota in the present case. I am not concerned in the present case with the merits of the application filed by the defendants for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against them. However, I am fully convinced that the plaintiff- petitioner has made out a case of transfer of Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 300/87 which is at present pending before the District Judge Kota The court of Additional District Judge No. 1 is already functioning at Kota and no prejudice could be pressured if the above case is now tried by this Court.” 24. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Meeta Agarwal (supra) has observed in para 14 as under:- “14. Keeping in mind the proposition of law discussed hereinabove, this Court has taken into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case. As far as allegations levelled by the applicant-plaintiff against the Presiding Officer of the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur having prejudiced with plaintiff and biased towards defendant No.2 are concerned, the same are not convincing nor have been substantiated/supported by any cogent peace of substantial evidence. However, it cannot be said that plaintiff has filed the transfer application with any malicious motive or to achieve some ulterior motive. There is no justification for the respondent- defendant No.2, for not consenting rather opposing the transfer application before the District Judge as well as before this Court. The concerned Presiding Officer, in his explanation has also expressed his no objection. There is no justification for the respondent- defendant No.2, for not consenting rather opposing the transfer application before the District Judge as well as before this Court. The concerned Presiding Officer, in his explanation has also expressed his no objection. Therefore, without discussing other factors in detail, but taking into consideration the judgments discussed hereinabove, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the transfer application as same would be in the interest of both parties as also in the interest of the concerned Presiding Officer, therefore, to secure ends of justice, the present transfer application is allowed and the present civil suit be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur to any other court of equivalent jurisdiction, for the purpose of final hearing and decision.” 25. The sum and substance of the discussion made above is that merely on an allegation of bias and favourtism or collusion of the Presiding Officer with any of the litigant without there being any substantial evidence, cannot be a ground to transfer of a case from one Court to other because this casts doubt about the integrity of the Presiding Officer without any substantial evidence and may cause adversity for career. This may encourage the litigants in lingering on the proceedings when they would not be having a good case in their favour by filing such applications. 26. It is the duty of the High Court to ensure that the Presiding Officers of the Subordinate Courts may discharge their duties without any fear and if any allegations of bias are made by any of the party, that may be enquired and if there is no substantial evidence, such allegations should be discarded like in the present case where the applicant though has made allegations of bias and favourtism and the collusion of the Presiding Officer with the Officer of the petitioner- Company but there is no iota of evidence on record in that regard. 27. One other issue has also been raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner /plaintiff that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner/ plaintiff before passing the transfer of the case. 27. One other issue has also been raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner /plaintiff that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner/ plaintiff before passing the transfer of the case. As per the facts on record, after filing of the transfer application by the respondent/ defendant, notices of the application were issued to the petitioner / plaintiff on 30.05.2025 for the next date of hearing fixed as 07.07.2025. The notices of the application were served upon the petitioner/ plaintiff on 05.06.2025. On the very next date fixed i.e. 07.07.2025, the transfer application has been allowed from which it seems that no proper opportunity to counter the allegations made in the application by filing a reply has been allowed to the petitioner/ plaintiff. 28. Section 24 (1) CPC clearly speaks that if there is an application for transfer of a case by any party, after notice to the party and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, the suit proceedings could be transferred. 29. The provision of notice to the parties of application for transfer as given under section 24 CPC does not merely provides for issuing of the notice but includes a proper opportunity of hearing which includes the opportunity to file counter to the allegations, if any also. In the present case as per the facts on record, the Court feels that no proper opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner/ plaintiff before passing an order for transfer of the case on an application for transfer made by the respondent/ defendant. 30. Merely consent of the Presiding Officer, as observed in the impugned order without there being his request, cannot be the sole basis for transfer of a case from one Court to other when in the application for transfer serious allegations of bias, favourtism and collusion have been levelled. Normally, a Presiding Officer on being called by the District Judge or the High Court, will never dissent to the question on transfer of the case because it is a settled presumption that no Presiding Officer has any personal interest in a proceeding but to ensure the confidence of the Presiding Officers in discharging their duties we have to deal with in strict as regards the allegations against the Presiding Officer, which are not supported by substantial evidence. 31. 31. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances and so also the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Civil Transfer Application No.112/2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 32. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, on Civil Transfer Application No.112/2025 is quashed and set aside and the transfer application No.112/2025 is dismissed. 33. Further, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the concerned Presiding Officer for recusing from this case if he feels so in accordance with the settled principles of law and justice. 34. In view of the order passed on the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.