Skip to content


Girdhari Lal Vs. Ashfaq Ali Khan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All448; 147Ind.Cas.773
AppellantGirdhari Lal
RespondentAshfaq Ali Khan and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....loan of 1920 and the claim is for rupees 10,000. the defendants are two persons residents in rampur state. it is set forth in the affidavit of the plaintiff that the learned subordinate judge during the pendency of the suit visited rampur state and attended a party once in company with defendant 1, and that the subordinate judge urged the plaintiff to accept a compromise and stated that if the plaintiff proceeded to rampur for the purpose he would guarantee the safety of the plaintiff.2. the learned subordinate judge in his explanation states that some relatives of his who live in rampur state came with one or two state officials and told him that defendant 1, nawab ashfaq ali khan, was a close relation and a personal friend of h.h. the nawab of rampur and that h.h. the nawab was.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bennet, J.

1. This is an application for transfer of a civil suit which is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun. The suit is brought on an alleged loan of 1920 and the claim is for rupees 10,000. The defendants are two persons residents in Rampur State. It is set forth in the affidavit of the plaintiff that the learned Subordinate Judge during the pendency of the suit visited Rampur State and attended a party once in company with defendant 1, and that the Subordinate Judge urged the plaintiff to accept a compromise and stated that if the plaintiff proceeded to Rampur for the purpose he would guarantee the safety of the plaintiff.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge in his explanation states that some relatives of his who live in Rampur State came with one or two State Officials and told him that defendant 1, Nawab Ashfaq Ali Khan, was a close relation and a personal friend of H.H. the Nawab of Rampur and that H.H. the Nawab was anxious to see the case compromised and was desirous of having a personal interview with the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge accordingly went to Rampur and interviewed His Highness and His Highness told him that he desired the suit compromised, and that he would be pleased if the Subordinate Judge could initiate a talk of compromise, and that he could guarantee the safety of the plaintiff in coming to Rampur. He then told the plaintiff on 15th February 1933, what the plaintiff has alleged. He admits that on a later occasion he went to Rampur and was present at a party at which defendant 1 was present. Learned Counsel for defendants argued that on a previous hearing in this Court learned Counsel for plaintiff had stated that he did not challenge the honesty of the Subordinate Judge. He therefore desired to argue that no ground exists for transfer. But learned Counsel for defendants admitted, that the contents of para. 11 of the affidavit of 7th April 1933, had not been withdrawn by the plaintiff or by his counsel. That paragraph states:

That under the circumstances mentioned above I am convinced that no justice would be meted out to me in the said sub-Judge's Court.

3. It is an elementary principle of the administration of justice that a presiding officer should not discuss pending cases outside Court with any person whatever. It is particularly objectionable in the present case that the Subordinate Judge broke this rule and discussed a pending case with a person in an exalted position such as His Highness the Nawab of Rampur. It appears to me to be impossible that the administration of justice could be carried on impartially if presiding officers indulge in such discussions. Under these circumstances I order that this case be transferred from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, to which the parties state they have no objection.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //