The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand (Rs. 25k) on a litigant who accused a Trial Judge for being biased against him. The Delhi High Court called it an example of abuse of process. The High Court was of the opinion that the allegations which ware without any material.
According to Justice C Hari Shankar though the nature of bias is like an apprehension rather than a proof, it must be real and not any method to somehow try one’s luck before another Court.
The Court remarked that Allegations of bias against a Judicial Officer are not to be likely made. Even issuance of notice on such an application has serious repercussions for the Judicial Officer concerned.
According to the Court every judicial officer is required to act free from any fear or favour, affection or will, and that it is the solemn oath which every Judicial Officer subscribes to, when he enters into his office.
The Court also said that if a request for transfer such as this, alleging, without any material facts, is to be entertained, this Court is constrained to observe that it would be impossible for Judicial Offers to discharge their duties without fear or favour.
Considering that the Court abstains from imposing costs on litigants who prosecute their cases on their own, The Court remarked: “This case, however, is an extreme example of abuse of process. It seeks, in a manner completely contrary to the law, to interfere with pending proceedings and also seeks to throw a clod on the integrity of a judicial officer without any material whatsoever.”
The Court was also dealing with a petition which sought intervention with respect to an order dated 9th March, 2022 and which was passed by the District Judge, Kakardooma Courts. The petitioner preferred an application and did appear in person before the trial Court. Under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a transfer of civil suit from the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, where the suit was pending, to another Court.
The petitioner sought the transfer of the case which the ASJ was presently dealing with and was biased against him. Three instances were quoted by the petitioner in order to affirm his allegation. They are as follows-
1) The order dated 15th Seotemder,2021, the ASJ has dismissed a review application filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation, despite the Supreme Court having, by its orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 extended limitation during the period of COVID pandemic.
2) The Additional Senior Civil Judge ought to have rectified an earlier order dated 9th December,2021 instead of merely contenting himself by taking the application on record. It was argued that till such rectification was done, the erroneous recital in the order would continue to be part of the part of the record and would prejudice him in future proceedings.
3) The bias was alleged with respect to an application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, which was preferred by the respondent, to bring on record, in the proceedings, a copy of an undertaking which was given by them in the suit.
The order by the District Judge observed that petitioner was unable to make any convincing case of the legitimate apprehension against the ASCJ.
After hearing the litigant in person, the Court said, “Prima facie, this petition is an abuse of process of court. The petitioner has apparently no bonafide case of bias against the learned ASCJ. A case of bias is being sought to be built up merely because the proceedings are not progressing as the petitioner would have them progress."
It was also added "I am constrained, therefore, despite the fact that the petitioner appears in person, to dismiss this petition with costs of ₹25,000/ - to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee." The plea was dismissed.
The Case title is Ankur Mutreja Vs Aviation Employees Building Society LTD.
.webp)
