Bombay High Court Dismisses Application Under Section 24 CPC Seeking Transfer of Appeal as Abuse of Process — Costs Imposed. Transfer Sought on Allegations of Bias to Delay Proceedings in Pending Rent Appeal, Court Holds That Unfounded Allegations Cannot Ground Transfer.

Application under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of appeal proceedings from appellate bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai.

Applicant sought transfer of Appeal No.59 of 2006 pending before the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai to another bench on grounds of bias.

Alleged bias of the presiding judge and refusal to accede to applicant's requests, including rejection of transfer application by Chief Judge.

Earlier, the applicant's various applications for stay of appeal, remand, etc. were rejected. The High Court had earlier directed disposal of appeal by 31/12/2018. The Chief Judge of Small Causes Court rejected the applicant's transfer application.

Whether the application under Section 24 CPC for transfer of the appeal was bona fide or constituted an abuse of process?

Applicant contended that the appellate judge was biased and that his transfer application was wrongly rejected; he sought transfer to ensure justice. Respondent argued that the application was a tactic to delay the hearing and that the applicant had been repeatedly filing applications to stall the appeal.

A party cannot be permitted to make unfounded allegations of bias against a judge to seek transfer of proceedings and thereby delay the hearing. The court has a duty to not recuse as a soft option when faced with motivated allegations intended to browbeat the court or to indulge in forum hunting, consistent with the oath under Article 219 and the principles in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court.

The path of recusal is very often a convenient and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest in doing a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India enjoins the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favour affection or ill will while upholding the constitution and the laws. The above passage, in our view, correctly sums up what should be the Court's response in the face of a request for recusal made with the intent to intimidate the court or to get better of an `inconvenient' judge or to obfuscate the issues or to cause obstruction and delay the proceedings or in any other way frustrate or obstruct the course of justice. The present miscellaneous civil application is a classic illustration of an attempt being made by a party to the proceedings to prolong the interim order operating in his favour and the various applications filed by him before the learned Judge, from whom the proceedings are sought to be transferred by filing an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. as an arm twisting strategy.

The original eviction suit (TE & R Suit No.253/274 of 2003) was decreed on 21.10.2005. The applicant and his mother filed Appeal No.59 of 2006 and obtained an interim stay on 02.03.2006. In 2010, a third party was impleaded as respondent No.8, which order was upheld by the High Court. In 2013, the applicant's application to stay the appeal pending another suit was rejected and challenge dismissed. In 2012, his application for stay of mesne profit proceedings was rejected. In 2014, his application for remand was rejected; a writ petition and review were dismissed and the High Court directed disposal of the appeal by 31.12.2018. When the appellate court set day-to-day hearing in August 2018, the applicant moved for transfer before the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court; that was rejected and the applicant stated he would approach the High Court. He filed the present MCA under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of the appeal. The application was heard and dismissed on 23.11.2021.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 24
• Constitution of India: 219