Gautam Sharma vs Paramvir Singh

The suit titled Gautam Sharma v. Paramvir Singh and others has been pending in the Court of Shri S.S. Jossan, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar; It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.9.2013, none appeared on behalf of the respondents/defendants. At about 4.00 p.m., the Presiding Officer directed an official of the Court to call counsel for the respondents/defendants, who appeared and, thereafter, the case was adjourned to 20.9.2013. The case was being adjourned on day to day basis and Paramvir Singh (defendant No. 1) was to be cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner, but Paramvir Singh requested the Court that he was to go abroad for vacation and long adjournment should be granted, that was, accordingly, granted. It was further requested by the counsel for the respondents/defendants that he would be available on or before 5.10.2013 and, as per his wish, the Presiding Officer granted number of adjournments to them up till 7.10.2013, on which date, defendant No. 1 appeared in the Court and the plaintiff was also present in the Court for whole of the day and informed the Court, from time to time, that his counsel was busy in some other Court, arguing in other cases, and he would be available to cross-examine the defendant No. 1. His counsel appeared in the Court at 3.15 p.m., but the Presiding Officer intentionally recorded the cross-examination of defendant No. 1 as ''Nil (opportunity granted)'', that has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner (plaintiff). On 7.10.2013, the respondents/defendants furnished documents in the Court, that were objected to, which shows that his counsel was present in Court. It is, thus, made out that the Presiding Officer, in whose Court the suit of the petitioner is pending, is biased, and the respondents are proclaiming that the Presiding Officer was under their influence and they could do, whatever, they felt like. So, on these facts, the petitioner filed transfer application, in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the District Judge, for transfer of the suit of the petitioner titled Gautam Sharma v. Paramvir Singh and others, pending in the Court of Shri S.S. Jossan, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, to some other Court.

Notice of this application was given to the respondents, who opposed the application by filing written reply, thereto.

The District Judge called comments of Shri S.S. Jossan, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, wherein, the latter refuted allegations by stating that the suit is 10 years old and he prayed for taking action against the petitioner for levelling such type of allegations.

After hearing both the sides, the District Judge, vide impugned order dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the application of the petitioner.

Aggrieved there against, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof; and for setting aside, thereof, and for transferring his case, pending before Shri S.S. Jossan, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, to some other Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the allegations that were levelled against the Presiding Officer in the application u/s 24 of the CPC filed before the District Judge, Amritsar. He contended that respondent/defendant No. 2 is an Advocate, and the Presiding Officer is under his influence and, therefore, the suit may be transferred to some other Court.

Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but no merit has been found, therein, as no motive can be ascribed to the Presiding Officer with whom the suit of the parties has been pending, to favour a party at the risk: of his career. The District Judge also, in his order dated 28.10.2013, held that the allegation that the Presiding Officer is favourably inclined towards the defendant No. 2, being an Advocate, does not seem convincing. No Judicial Officer can be influenced by such like factor. Even, an Advocate cannot, possibly, dare to interfere in the judicial process. The District Judge also held that the allegation levelled by the petitioner that the respondents are proclaiming that the Presiding Officer is under their influence, is a very wild allegation. Indeed, this is a vague allegation to be levelled against any Judicial Officer.

The District Judge is the appropriate authority to know the working reputation of a Judicial Officer. If the Presiding Officer before whom the suit of the parties is pending, had not been enjoying good judicial working reputation, then, in that event, he would have definitely ordered transfer of the suit pending before the present Presiding Officer, to some other Court. A view different than the one taken by the District Judge, cannot be taken by this Court. When the District Judge is saying that there is no merit in the allegation of biasness leveled against the Presiding Officer, there is no way out, save to concur with his findings, especially when no material has been brought on the record in support of the allegations that have been levelled against the Presiding Officer in the transfer application, that was dismissed by the District Judge, vide impugned order.

There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, that must be upheld and affirmed. Resultantly, the revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed.