Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Amruta Nilay Shah, challenged an order dated 14th September 2017 passed by the Principal District Judge, Raigad-Alibag, in Misc. Application No.133 of 2017. The respondents had filed the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Special Civil Suit No.220 of 2017 from the file of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel, to any other court, alleging bias. The Principal District Judge rejected the bias allegations but transferred the suit on administrative grounds to the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel, stating that it was not fit to be tried by the same judge who had granted interim alimony. The petitioner contended that since the bias allegations were not proved, there was no reason to transfer the suit, and that the suit should have been retained in the same court where H.M.P. No.116 of 2014 (a matrimonial petition between the same parties) was pending. The High Court held that the transfer order was not sustainable because the only reason given was that the judge had granted interim alimony, which was not a valid ground for transfer. The court emphasized that when two matters between the same parties involve similar issues, it is expedient to have them tried by the same judge to avoid conflicting findings and inconvenience. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the transfer order, and directed that Special Civil Suit No.220 of 2017 be tried by the same court where H.M.P. No.116 of 2014 is pending, i.e., the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Suit - Section 24 CPC - Bias Allegations - Where allegations of bias against a judge are not proved, the court should not transfer the suit on administrative grounds to a different court, especially when a related matter between the same parties is pending before the same judge - Held that the transfer order was not sustainable as it would lead to inconsistent findings and inconvenience (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Principal District Judge erred in transferring the suit to a different court on administrative grounds despite rejecting allegations of bias, and whether the suit should have been retained in the same court where a related petition was pending.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 14th September 2017, and directed that Special Civil Suit No.220 of 2017 be tried by the same court where H.M.P. No.116 of 2014 is pending, i.e., the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel.
Law Points
- Transfer of suit under Section 24 CPC
- Bias allegations
- Administrative transfer
- Same judge for connected matters
- Consistency of findings
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 58
Writ Petition No. 11612 of 2017 with Civil Application No. 2479 of 2017
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Petitioner in person; Mr. Mihir R. Govilkar a/w Ms. Shaba Khan i/b Govilkar & Associates for the Respondents
Nilay Rajendra Shah & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of transfer of a civil suit under Section 24 CPC.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the transfer order and retention of the suit in the same court where a related matrimonial petition was pending.
Filing Reason
The Principal District Judge transferred the suit to a different court on administrative grounds despite rejecting bias allegations, causing inconvenience and risk of inconsistent findings.
Previous Decisions
The Principal District Judge rejected the bias allegations but transferred the suit to Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel.
Issues
Whether the Principal District Judge erred in transferring the suit on administrative grounds after rejecting bias allegations.
Whether the suit should be tried by the same judge who is already seized of a related matter between the same parties.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that since bias allegations were not proved, there was no reason to transfer the suit; the suit should be retained in the same court where HMP No.116 of 2014 is pending to avoid inconsistent findings.
Respondents supported the transfer order.
Ratio Decidendi
When allegations of bias are not proved, a suit should not be transferred on administrative grounds to a different court, especially when a related matter between the same parties is pending before the same judge, as it is expedient to have both matters tried by the same judge to avoid conflicting findings and inconvenience.
Judgment Excerpts
The reason assigned by the Principal District Judge for transferring the said suit to another Court i.e. Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel was not correct as the only reason assigned is that, 'in fitness of things I do not deem it fit that it should be tried by the same Judge, who has granted interim alimony'.
When the dispute is between the same parties and more or less involves the same issues, it is always expedient in the interest of justice that the same Judge should try both the matters so that there is no possibility of inconsistent findings.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Misc. Application No.133 of 2017 under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of Special Civil Suit No.220 of 2017 from the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel. The Principal District Judge rejected the bias allegations but transferred the suit to Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel on administrative grounds. The petitioner challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No.11612 of 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 24
