Heated Exchange With Judge Alone No Ground For Transfer Of Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that heated exchange with the presiding of officer of a court alone, cannot be the reason to seek transfer to another Court.

"It has to be kept in mind that during the course of arguments, at times, though not called for, temperatures do run high. However, this alone would not be reason enough for an apprehension to crop up in the minds of any of the parties that they would not get justice from the Court concerned,' said the bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal.

The Court further clarified that at the same time, it is for the Presiding Officers also to ensure that no acts of theirs gives rise to such an apprehension. The Bar Members are also expected to maintain decorum in the Court, it said.

These observation came in a plea seeking transfer of a civil suit for specific performance to another Court. The petitioners submitted that he was denied the opportunity to argue against an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the opposite party, which raised an apprehension in their minds that they would not get justice. It was also stated that some heated exchange of words took place between the Civil Judge and the petitioners.

Therefore, an application for transfer was filed but, it was rejected by the Gurugram District Court. Whereas the Civil Judge had mentioned in the impugned order that he did not loose his cool, petitioners maintained that this is factually wrong.

The Court found that the transfer plea by the Gurugram District Court was rightly rejected. It further opined that the heated exchange between the advocate and the judge cannot be the reason alone to transfer the case.

While rejecting the transfer petition, the Court said, "However, the Court concerned is expected to give a fair hearing to all sides (as per law) before taking a final decision on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. This should set at rest any apprehension expressed by the parties to the lis."

Case Title: Raj Bala & another v. Rishabh Birka & others.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 154

Counsel for petition: Advocate Vaibhav Naran

Click here to read/download the order