rc'^" IH THS HIOH GOURS? OP JUD'ICATtTRE AT BILjiSPUR (CG) M.C.G.NO. GR__oi? 200^ S',-i^!s..Bsast? ''ETIIONER ^\^v) I^SPOETDSTT /afS. ANTJ-PAI4A KEISA •(^0 MANOJ KEBIA aged atoufc 28 years. Q/O Gopal Prasafi Sjxaw&l., at presen-fc resic31ng at v£noba Nagar,- Siana iaFbah.ar, Tahsil and Ea-stt Bilaspur (cs). Versus :^ Hanoj Kunar dia S/o Knshav Prasad ^ Kedia, age<3 abou-fc 33 years^ resident ©f Hear 'WS.jaya I&lkies, OTansport Nagar irba»' Ed.strict Kbrba (ce). »PPL:ICaT3;ON UNDBR SEeTIO»:24OF--CIVIL PROCEBURE COEB XI-HC-78 3^ '<<i<ii<i<<, ©Tnti'iG,Riiwy K.d.C. Mo . O2-/ h ^,^- tTWMI Sh*l|ch ^ 200sy ^' 3TI^?T ira^T (yil^q^i)') sn^rqiTf^iN; (ISIT3II^TStl1 ?^nWfl1?(T3TI^?T wife4^r irpRff ff iWt rf^irzR ^sri^iTan^T 08-12-2006 Petitioner Smt Anup^ Advocate. Respondent Manoj Advocate. l-1eard on I.A.NO.; in the body of the petition Section-24 of C.P.C. pendirig KORBA to BILASPUR.In petitioner has also filed copie^ 07-11 -2006 recorded by the I.A.No.3984/2006 is , bodyofthe petition today. With the consent of application under Section-24 of stage. Brief facts are that initialll 3rd Additional District Judge, ^ application for transfer of the pistrict Judge, Bilaspur 16-09-2003 transferred the CE| Additional District Judge, F.T.f District Judge, Bilaspur. After this case No.14-A/2002 stood Court, Korba. Evidence of Judge, Famity Court, Korba arguments. ma Kedia by Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Ki(imar Kedia by Shri Rarag Kotecha, fd>r 3984/2c)06 which is an application foramendment transfer of case No.14-A/2002 under taefore the Principal Judge, Family Court, suf^port of the amendment application, the ^ of Order sheets datad 13-10-2006 and leafned Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba. allojwed. Amendment be incorporated in the leartied counsel for the parties, arguments on |C.P.C. were finally heard at the admission y the proceedings were pending before the (orba. The petitioner-wife had moved an on the ground of inconvenience. The the application and vide order dated N0.14-A/2002 from the Court of 3rd KORBA to the Court of 5th Additional formation of Korba as a Judicial District, transferred automaticaily to the Family has been recorded by the Principal land the case is at the stage of final dase allowdd CElse trie pai|ties XI-HC-78 ^i*iwi ?b*n^ 3^'HipncTiT, otn'M'ie, R«iwy< |^.C.C.N«. 01-/ ?F[ 200^" 3ii^?T irag; ((Iprf3^8r) Sn^T^iTf^IRi TOT sn^r aiuitt] STdRTCHfeTSn^T •2.- "The attitude of the Family Arguments were heard. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, lea wrf?I^T WRft'ff fec^ (f^CTC ^iSri^ITSII^T Ms.Sharmila Singhai, le^med counsel for the petitioner has pressed the application under Se(|;tion-24 of C.P.C. only on the following ground which has been incorpoijated by the petitioner by amendment today and on no otherground: Learned Court below reveals that it is biased in favour of the resp|ondent and as such the applicant is not iikely to get a fair opportunitl? and fair justice in the case." •ned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on A.I.R.-1951-Calcut)|a-286, A.I.R.-1957-Patna-198, 2002- A.I.H.C.-1938 (Orissa), A.I.R.-196^-S.C.-720, A.I.Rs-2003 (Rajasthan)-62 and A.I.R.-2002-S.C.-396 while c()ntending that the manner in which,the Principal Judge, Family Court, |<orba conducted the proceedings on 13-10-20re and 07-11-2006 ther^ is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the trial is not a fair and impartial trial and that she would not receive justice in th^ Family Court, Korba. On the other hand, Shri Fs|arag Kotecha, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer afid placed reliance on A.I.R.-1999-S.C.- 1524, A.I.R.-1992-S.C.-1133, $004 (13) S.C.C.-436, A.I.R.-2003- Kamataka-39,A.I.R.-1988^3ujral|-63,A.I.R.-1S95-Karnataka-112,A.I.R.- 1987-M.P.^I, A.I.R.-1972-Keral4-263, 2004 (13)-S.C.C.-634 and 2004 (13}-S.C.C.-694 while contending fhat the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner about not getting a faii) trial was absolutely baseless and not borne out from the order sheetda|ted 13-10-2006 & 07-11-2006 of Family Court, Korba. It was also contend|ed that in order to infuse confidence in the parties the learned Principal ^Judge, Family Court, Korba had taken care to record the order sheets in ^reat details while incorporating the time_ of the proceedings also. L.._.— XI-HC-78 'S^f -^ww^, vr^[wie, ^wwy, M.C,C.K>6,OZ./ *11*IW Sh+11<ft •^2005" W^ V^SK (lclIss"«.]iT) sn^rw R.iiob (PIT STI^T shH e<fllWHf^(T3f1^?T ^ Having heard rival contc dated 13-10-2006 & 07-11-20C prineiple which weighs with th under Section-24 of C.P.C. ha; Laxmi and anotherVs.State t whieh is extracted as under:- [ntions, 1 have perused the order sheets |6 which runs into 8 pages. The guiding ^ Court while considering an application been succinctly narrated in Lalit Rajya \f Bihar reported in A.I.R-1957-Patna-198 "It is .nat merely 04 importance thatju^c^ and undoubtedly, se©4 nof only remain unsu/( suriace and outside at the confidence. cf administration cf the fhe Court administerinlg justice public is a vital eleme^ faots are apt, or at confidenoe, the suprelf altow the ordinary aji transfer the case front thatjustice should be fo all including those p)- lekst "Therefore, ifthere 4 reasonabte apprehe^sion transfer ffiiat he wouk other words, that he\ may not getjusSce if case should be trani whettwr the facts 4 such a reasonable\ apptying for transfeli, party's arm-chair; ari(S himself inthe positi^n party himself stood,| which the paity was\ see andjudge for hfi): the party's mind, an^ raise fte reasonabl^ tiiiTfi'n'i tfiHc]Tffte^t<Rit^i< ^isri^iran^T some impoitance, but is cf fundamental 1 sftoufcf not only be cScne but shoufcf manifestly, <i to be done. The pure fountain ofjustice must r|»ed from within, but it must also, even on the ifspear and actually remain unpolluted, so that jie atizens of the country in the judicial ^ountry may ismain unshaken. ConMence in on the part of bath parties and cf the ]f in the administration ofjustice. If the admitted are capable of being used, fo destroy this |ne needs ofjustiaa are clearly such as not to juree of justice to be left untouched. but to sucft Court. ft (s as such not onty necessary ijfcine; it is also necessary that it shoukl be plain 1-oceedecf against that it is 'oeing done. " re circumstances in a case, which ra/se a in VTB mind of fhe person applying for rf notreceive fair dealings at his trial, or, in maynot have a iair and imparffal trial, ancS n the court, where the suit is pencSng, the sferred. In such a case, Jn order te decide nd circumstances are sufficient to raise apprehension in the mird of ffie party the court shoukt put himself in such a ien atone the Court is at liberty fo place of. and, the samesituaSon in which, the with ttw knawledge of all the facts vwft acquainted, and, then only ttie Court can nsetfhaw these facts would have affected rf, if they are reasonabte and sufRcient to apprehension complained of in the mind L.__ XI-HC-78 3:s? '<<wici<i, »Tn*ri6,ls|diy^< . VA.(,. C.NO, 02-/ *n^f^fTSh<11cb • ^ 200^~ 3ll^)fl Macn ('yi^<sf<{liT) sn^TqirRFiw (raTsn^rstitiicb ?RITW HfStT SfI^T <»ii<iF<-i<fl-( ^ii4(-iTiftei^t<Ri^ii< ^srf^irsn^T ofeven a reasonable JDerson." Applying the fundamenta considering the manner in whii principles enunciated above and also ^h the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba conducted the pro|seedings and for the following reasons, 1 am of theconsidered opinion th|at a reasonable apprehension has arisen in the mind of the petitioner that|she is not likely to receive justice at the hands of the learned Principal Ju| (A) At the time of recorcj learned Principal Judge, fair manner and it was fo! dge, Family Court, Korba: ling evidence, the manner in which the :amily Court, Korba cross-examined the witnesses of the applicartt-husband, a reasonable doubt arose in the mind of non-applican(-wife that the Judge was not acting in a r this reason that in para-14 of the order sheet dated 07-11-2006 ^n objection was raised by the father of the non-applicant-wife th^t the learned Principal Judge should not cross-examine her witnlesses and allow them to be cross- examined by the husban( (B) Para-22 of the order| that with the consent of closed and the case was| If it were so, then there I Isheet dated 07-11-2006 explicitly shows |the parties, the evidence of parties was llisted for final arguments on 14-11-2006. ivas no need for the appearance of non- y applicant-wife thereafter |and to pray for adducing evidence. The order sheet written by th|e learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba later on, qn the ^ame day goes to show that during the proceedings again, fatt^er of the non-applicant-wife had lost complete faith and even refused to sign the order sheets till they were completed and sign|ed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba. ( C) It is also clear from (he perusal of the order sheets written by the learned Principal Ju<fge, Family Court, korba that at several places several correctior|s and additions of substance have been made by the learned Pri|icipal Judge, Family Court, Korba in his own handwriting and t(ie time of the proceedings was also mentioned. The manneij in which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba rec^rded lengthy order sheets running into 8_ XI-HC-78 HltlPTT ?h*lich 3sq'^iraRW, ®Tflu'i<s,Ridlti^<. . H.^C.Mo, 02-/ ^ 200 ^~ 311^1 >iaw (•^qt^qyT) sn^T^rRHi* (raTan^rsRiTR; ?TBTW l(f?cT SIT^T C5" 'hlltcl'fl-f Hl'KlT^'teiA'tRt+dK ^i3rf^IT3T^T pages cleariy goes to sh|ow that the judge was completely at the defensive and wanted to (aroject that he was being fair. (D) It is also worth mer| Principal Judge, Family 7.15 P.M. to record the e'l In the ultimate analysi circumstances and facts statec itioning that on 07-11-2006 the learned Court, Korba stayed in the Cou^. up to fidence. ^, the cumulative effect of alt the above, is certainly such that even a reasonable man might reasonaJDly be expected to have a reasonable apprehension that he witl not hal get similarity of facts and circum: /e a fair trial before the court concerned. So far as the case law cited at t|ie Bar is concerned, it is not possible to ,tances with the facts of the present case in all respects, but, in my opinicjn, the circumstances enumerated above taken conjunctively do show tha( these circumstances are quite sufficient to raise reasonable apprehensioi|i in the mind of the petitioner that she will not get justice in the Court of Pj'incipal Judge, Family Court, Korba. It is therefore expedient in the interest ofjustice thatthe case No.14-A/2002 be transferred from the Court of leatied Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba to the Court of Principal Judge, F^mily Court, Bilaspur. Accordingiy, it is ordered t|iat the Case No.14-A/2002 is transferred from the Court of Principal Jud^e, Family Court, Korba to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, pilaspur who shall aftpr giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the rtarties, proceed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible. The Pt'incipal Judge, Family Court, Korba shall transmit the record of case No.1 Court, Bilaspur forthwith. Registi Principal Judge, Family Court, Kcjrba immediately." 4-A/2002 to the Principal Judge, Family y shall send a copy of this order to the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 sn^T^RrR-fi.* <W3n^T*ii+ ^ ^^ 3^ •<<i<ii<'i<<, WTnwis, RiwKfy M,C.(L^» 02-/ *ll*ldt ShW<ti 2005" 3TI^?rKath (l^3g^r) '!t- S^ITW sf?ff <ffl^r 6 Parties shall appear befc] Court, Bilaspuron 19-12-2006. Certified copyas perrules| t>i<iffi<fl-i *<i*«iTffte<^<Ri+<;i< ^sil^iTsn^r e the learned Principal Judge, Family ~-i Sd/- .' DUip Raosaheb DeshmukK Judge ^•3 ("=2:—'"' P.T.O.