Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Ezu Joseph Fernandes and others, filed a miscellaneous civil application before the Bombay High Court challenging two orders: (1) the order of the Joint District Judge, Thane, in Misc. Application No. 197 of 2004 declining to transfer RCS No. 583 of 1999, RCS No. 204 of 1990, and Misc. Application No. 263 of 1990 from the court of Mr. A.N. Sontakke, Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Thane, to any other court; and (2) the order passed by the trial judge below Exhibit-17/1 on 24th September 2003 in RCS No. 583 of 1999, which set aside the abatement of the suit and allowed the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record. The applicants also sought the same relief as prayed in Misc. Application No. 197 of 2004. The background of the case involves disputes over tenanted premises. The plaintiff in RCS No. 583 of 1999 died on 7th October 2002, and an application at Exhibit-17 was filed on 23rd January 2003 to bring his legal representatives on record. The suit had abated in the meantime. The applicants filed their say to this application, marked as Exhibit-21. The trial court, noting that the suit concerned tenanted premises and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, condoned the delay, set aside the abatement, and allowed the application to bring the LRs on record. The applicants challenged this order, alleging bias against the trial judge. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no fault with the trial court's order regarding the setting aside of abatement and bringing LRs on record, as it was aimed at avoiding multiplicity of litigation. Regarding the transfer application, the court held that the applicants failed to establish any bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge, and therefore, the order declining transfer was correct. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the miscellaneous civil application with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Suit - Bias - Allegations of bias against a judicial officer must be supported by substantial evidence; mere apprehension is not sufficient - The applicants failed to establish any bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge, and the application for transfer was rightly dismissed (Paras 2-4). B) Civil Procedure - Abatement and Legal Representatives - Condonation of Delay - Order 22 Rule 9 CPC - The trial court's order setting aside abatement and allowing the application to bring legal representatives on record was justified to avoid multiplicity of litigation, as the suit pertained to tenanted premises and the delay was explained (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order setting aside abatement and bringing legal representatives on record is sustainable, and whether the suit should be transferred from the court of Mr. A.N. Sontakke on grounds of bias.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the miscellaneous civil application, upholding the trial court's order setting aside abatement and bringing LRs on record, and affirming the district court's order declining transfer. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer of suit on ground of bias requires substantial evidence
- Condonation of delay in bringing legal representatives is discretionary to avoid multiplicity
- No fault in setting aside abatement when delay is explained
