Skip to content


Khodabhai Manibhai Vs. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Civil Appln. No. 848 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Guj189
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 24 - Order 2, Rule 6
AppellantKhodabhai Manibhai
RespondentThe United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Appellant Advocate Ashok L. Shah, Adv.
Respondent Advocate M.C. Desai, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - it may be observed in the passing that sometimes the litigants out of strong emotions may try to be unfair or even vicious in their personal attacks on the judges concerned, but the legal profession owes it to itself and to the litigating public if not to the judiciary as a whole that they should not be a party to making such unfair allegations against the judges personally......that court to any other judge in the city civil court at ahmedabad on the ground that the learned trial judge is prejudiced against him and that he would not get a fair treatment and justice in that court.2. firstly it must be stated that such an application as this, does not lie in this court. it would have been proper for the present applicant to file an application before the principal judge, city civil court, ahmedabad. secondly, this court would not entertain an application of this type because it contains an unfair attack on the learned trial judge that he is prejudiced against the present applicant and that he would not get a fair treatment and justice in the court of the said trial judge. the mere fact that the learned trial judge had refused to order that another suit which was.....
Judgment:

A.S. Qureshi, J.

1. This Miscellaneous application is filed by the present applicant who is the plaintiff in the suit. The applicant says that when the present suit was called out before the learned Judge, he brought it to the notice of the Court that there was another suit between the same parties and arising out of the same cause of action and hence the present suit should be heard together with the other suit. The learned Judge, according to the present applicant, was pleased to observe that there was no substance in the suit before the Court and that the present applicant-plaintiff should withdraw that suit. In the present application the applicant claims relief that the present suit being Civil Suit No. 2726/81 pending before His Hoh'ble Judge Shri Keshvani of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad should be transferred from that Court to any other Judge in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on the ground that the learned trial Judge is prejudiced against him and that he would not get a fair treatment and justice in that Court.

2. Firstly it must be stated that such an application as this, does not lie in this Court. It would have been proper for the present applicant to file an application before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Secondly, this Court would not entertain an application of this type because it contains an unfair attack on the learned trial Judge that he is prejudiced against the present applicant and that he would not get a fair treatment and justice in the Court of the said trial Judge. The mere fact that the learned trial Judge had refused to order that another suit which was not on his Board for hearing could be tagged on the present suit the present applicant is not justified in making allegation that the learned Judge was prejudiced against him and that he cannot get fair trial before that Judge. Such wild and baseless allegation against the trial Judge cannot be tolerated because, false and scandalous allegations made against a Judge personally would have a tendency not only to dismay and demoralise the Judge concerned, but also it would tend to weaken the judicial system itself. It may be observed in the passing that sometimes the litigants out of strong emotions may try to be unfair or even vicious in their personal attacks on the Judges concerned, but the legal profession owes it to itself and to the litigating public if not to the judiciary as a whole that they should not be a party to making such unfair allegations against the Judges personally. Because weakening the judiciary will adversely affect the rule of law which is the sine qua non of a just and orderly society.

3. This application would have been rejected in limine. A notice was, however, issued to the other side with a view to find out whether the other suit was ready for hearing and disposal so that the time of the Court and avoidable cost of hearing the two suits separately could be saved. Moreover, it is also proper that the two suits should be heard together because, if they are heard by the two different Courts, between the same parties arising out of same cause of action and the two Courts give different findings on the same set of facts it would create an embarrassing situation and some unforeseen complications also may arise. To avoid this situation, the notice was issued to the other side. Mr. Mahendra C. Desai has appeared for the opponent. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the opponent says that he has no information as to whether the other suit is ready or not for hearing, but Mr. A. L. Shah, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the other suit is in fact ready for hearing and both these suits can be heard together right now. Hence, the present Miscellaneous application is rejected with the direction that the two suits, being the present Suit No. 2726/81, be heard together with the Civil Suit No. 2843/81 immediately before the same learned trial Judge against whom this transfer application is filed. Notice discharged.


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