1 WP No.5479/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5479 of 2010 Ajit Arjun Desai ... Petitioner versus Sai Dham Charitable Trust & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. V.S.Pandey i/b E.K.Sasidharan for the petitioner. Ms.Hetal Patel for respondent nos.1, 2, 5 and 9. Mr.S.J.Manek for respondent nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 10. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 16th August 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 8 April 2010 rejecting the application made by him to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai for transfer of a petition from one Judge of the City Civil Court to another Judge of the City Civil Court. 3. The learned Principal Judge, in the impugned order has held that he has no jurisdiction to transfer the matter from one Judge of the City Civil Court to another Judge of the same Court. However, the learned 2 WP No.5479/10 Principal Judge has thereafter proceeded to hear the application and dismissed it on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that after having held that he had no jurisdiction, the learned Principal Judge ought not to have recorded any finding on merits. I am unable to agree. The Principal Judge has clearly observed that he was considering the application for transfer on merits so as to avoid remand in the event his view that he had no jurisdiction u/s.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure was set aside by the High Court. The approach of the learned Principal Judge cannot be faulted with in deciding the application on merits also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the conduct of the case by the learned Judge before whom the matter was pending, was such as to create an impression in the mind of the petitioner that the learned Judge was biased and he would not get justice. In the circumstances on merits, application deserves to be allowed. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a few instances which are considered below. 6. The petitioner had taken out a Notice of Motion for contempt bearing No.2611/07. He had requested the Court to hear the contempt notice before the hearing of the original Notice of Motion No.110/07 which was remanded back for fresh hearing by the High Court. That request was rejected and learned Judge took up the Notice of Motion No.110/07 for hearing first. This showed bias. In my view, there is no merit in this contention. The original Notice of Motion was earlier in 3 WP No.5479/10 point of time. If procedurally the learned Judge felt that Notice of Motion should be heard in the order of the filing and decide to hear the Notice of Motion 110/07 first, that cannot give any reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a litigant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that at the hearing of Notice of Motion no.110/07, the learned Judge put a time restriction of 10 minutes on the arguments of the petitioner and this was without jurisdiction and showed bias. It may be noted that prior to the putting of the time restriction, parties were heard at length at the first instance and then they were directed to submit written submissions. Written submissions were submitted and request of the parties to make further submissions was granted. While granting request to further submissions, learned Judge imposed a restriction of time of 10 minutes. Firstly, regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to impose a time restriction on the arguments, it may be noted that Rule 2 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been amended by the Amendment Act of 2002 and sub-rules 3A to 3D have been added thereto. Sub-rule 3D of Rule 2 says that the Court shall fix such time limit for oral arguments by either of the parties in a case as it thinks fit. Sur-rule 3D clearly confers a power on the Court to impose a time restriction. Learned Judge therefore committed no error of jurisdiction in imposing the time limit. As regards the reasonableness of the time limit fixed by the learned Judge, the roznama itself discloses that the parties were first heard and thereafter they were directed to file written submissions and after the written submissions were further permitted to advance oral arguments. In such circumstances, imposition of time restriction of 10 minutes for further arguments after written 4 WP No.5479/10 submissions, cannot be said to be unreasonable and in any event, no interference of bias can be drawn on such basis. With the huge pendency of cases in the Court, if the Court allows the arguments to go on indefinitely and that too after hearing the full arguments at the first instance and the written submissions, then the backlog would never be cleared. In my view, the allegations of bias against the learned Judge are uncalled for. 8. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)