Arun Nath vs Dr. Rathin Datta

S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.—This is an application u/s 24 of the CPC for transferring the Money Suit No. 43/91 (M.S. No. 1/91) from the Court of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.

Petitioner is the Defendant in the Money Suit. According to the Petitioner Shri P.K. Sarkar, the present District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala is intimately known to Dr. Rathin Dutta, the Plaintiff, who is the Special Secretary to the Govt of Tripura in the Department of Health and has taken unusual interest in the Money Suit, so much so he suo moto transferred the Money Suit No. 43/91 from the Court of learned Sub-Judge, West Tripura, Agartala within 4 days of its admission to his file Without any reason and that he has displayed unusual reluctance to grant time to the Defendant-Petitioner for filing written statement after collecting necessary documents. Petitioner reasonably apprehends that he would not get justice.

On 3.4.92, this application was moved and notice was issued and records were called for. The Plaintiff opposite party entered appearance on that date through his counsel. On the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, particularly, of the Plaintiff opp. party, the petition was heard on 8.4.92.

I have heard Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the opp. party and have perused the materials on record.

Order sheet of the Money Suit reveals that the suit was instituted on 1.7.91 with deficit court fee in the Court of the learned Sub-Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and the learned Sub-Judge by orders dated 1.7.91 and 5.8.91 granted time to the Plaintiff to pay deficit court fee. The Plaintiff paid the deficit court fee on 5.9.91 and the learned Sub-Judge on perusal of the report of the Sheristadar having found that the suit was in order, passed order on 7.9.91 for issue of summons to the Defendants fixing 5.10.91 for service report. However on 11.9.91, the learned District-Judge suo moto transferred the Money Suit to his file by the order as follows:

11.9.91 Records put up before me from the file of the Subordinate Judge West Tripura, Agartala on call.

The record is withdrawn to ray file for disposal. So date fixed.

Admittedly, the court of learned Sub-Judge is the original court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of the Money Suit and ordinary there could hardly be any reason for the transfer of the suit from the court of the learned Sub-Judge within 4 days of admission of the suit. There is neither any application nor any other material on record to justify the transfer of the suit to the file of learned District Judge. No doubt, the learned District Judge may suo moto transfer a suit from the subordinate court in exercise of power conferred u/s 24 Code of Civil Procedure, but that power is not arbitrary and the power has to be exercised judicially for cogent reason. In the instant case, no reason for the transfer of the suit can be traced either in the order transferring the suit or from the materials on records.

Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff opposite party submitted that it might be due to high valuation of the suit at Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) the Money Suit has been transferred. I am unable to accept the contention. The Sub-Judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit of any valuation. There is no Rule or procedure and/or practice in vague for transfer of the suit of higher valuation from the Court of original jurisdiction to Court of learned District Judge. Besides, materials on record do not disclose that the institution of the suit was intimated to learned District Judge from the Court of learned Sub-Judge or from any other source. Ordinarily, the learned District Judge was not supposed to know the fact of institution of the suit within 4 days of admission thereof.

The Defendant-Petitioner has alleged that Plaintiff-opposite party is intimately known to the learned District Judge; West Tripura and Defendant saw that Plaintiff visiting the learned District Judge, Shri P.K. Sarkar in his chambers in the Court Defendant-Petitioner has contended that ordinarily, the learned District Judge could not have any knowledge of institution of the suit in the Court of learned Sub-Judge. The Defendant-Petitioner apprehends that learned District Judge is going to decree the suit in favour of the Plaintiff.

I am not inclined to embark into the various allegations made in the petition. But I am constrained to hold that the manner of transfer of the suit by the learned District Judge to his file, apparently without any cogent reason, appears to a bit unusual and that the misgivings in the minds of the Defendant that the learned District Judge has shown unusual interest in the Money Suit and he is not likely to get justice, is not unnatural. This sort of arbitrary exercise of power u/s 24 CPC suo motu should not be resorted to, inasmuch as such action not only gives rise misgivings and apprehension in the minds of the litigants, but also may shake the confidence of the Presiding Officer of the subordinate Court.

For the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation to allow the application Money Suit No. 43/91 (M.S. 1/91) stands withdrawn from the file of Shri P.K. Sarkar, learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and is resorted to the file of learned Sub-Judge West Tripura, Agartala for disposal thereof in accordance with law. I make no order to costs.