I.D. Dua, J. - (1.) DR . Hardit Singh Defendant No. 1 in the suit pending in the, Court of Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ambala, has applied under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the suit from the Court of the said Subordinate Judge, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction having earlier unsuccessfully approached the learned District Judge for the same relief.
(2.) BHAGAT Jaswant Singh instituted the suit in question for the recovery of Rs. 5,000/ - against Dr. Hardit Singh, Shri Hargobind, Superintending Engineer, and Shri Pritam Singh, Senior Assistant to Electric Inspector now Executive Engineer. The suit, has now reached almost the final stage, and, according to Dr. Hardit Singh's averments in the Application for transfer in this Court, written arguments have already been submitted by the parties, The Petitioner 's grievance is that the learned Subordinate Judge has created a feeling that he has a soft corner for Bhagat Jaswant Singh, by giving to the latter undue accommodation. The case was fixed for arguments for the first time on 21 -2 -1963 and since then there have bean 9/10 hearings but the case was always adjourned on account of failure of Bhagat Jaswant Singh's counsel to begin his arguments. The Petitioner also alleges to have been informed by one Shri Ranjodh Singh of Ambala City who is stated to have seen Shri Tejinder Singh son of Bhagat Jaswant Singh coming out of the house of the learned Subordinate Judge on 2 -8 -1963 and to have also seen Bhagat Jaswant Singh's car parked in front of the Subordinate Judge's house. An. affidavit sworn by Shri Ranjedh Singh was filed by Dr. Hardit Singh in support of his Application for transfer in the Court of the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge asked for the learned Subordinate Judge's comments and in response the learned Subordinate Judge stated in the end of his comments as follows: I would request the learned District Judge to verify for himself as to on whose behalf attempt has been made, to approach, what is the real reason behind this Application.... This passage has been quoted by the Petitioner in his Application in this Court and it has been relied Upon for supporting the contention that the Petitioner 's apprehension is well founded. In his submission the learned Counsel has referred me to the record of the trial Court and has attempted to show that from 14 -2 -1963, when the evidence was closed adjournments have been granted to the Plaintiff on untenable grounds. On 14 -2 -1963 after closing the evidence the case: was adjourned to 21 -2 -1963 for arguments. On 21 -2 -1963, the Plaintiff's counsel was not ready for arguments with the result that the case was adjourned to 7 -3 -1963. On that date the counsel for the parties were present but, according to the Court's order, talk for compromise was going on with the result that time was required for pursuing the purpose. The case was thus adjourned to 19 -3 -1963. On the last mentioned date the compromise was not effected but the case was nevertheless adjourned to 26 -3 -1963 for arguments. On that date the Presiding Officer being on leave the case was adjourned to 28 -3 -1963. On 28 -3 -1963 without assigning any reason the case was again adjourned for arguments to 204 -1963 because no earlier date appeared to suit the counsel. On 20 -4 -1963 also the Plaintiff's counsel wanted time for arguments and the case was adjourned to 30 -4 -1963. On 304 -1963 a miscellaneous Application was filed by the Plaintiff and a copy was given to the opposite party for reply on 9 -5 -1963. On 9 -5 -1963 the reply was filed and the case was adjourned for arguments to 14 -5 1963. On 14 -5 -1963 Ch. Bakhtawar Singh could not argue the case on account of some death in the family with the result that the case was adjourned to 25 -5 -1963. On 25 -5 -1963 arguments on the Application for additional evidence were heard but the Court found no ground for granting an opportunity to lead more evidence. The Plaintiff's counsel, however, again could not prepare arguments on account of the death of some relative with the result that the case was adjourned to 1 -6 -1963. On 25 -5 -1963, however, the Court became conscious of the case being very old and passed an order that no further opportunity would be granted. On 1 -6 -1963 Ch. Bakhtawar Singh was out of station and Shri Manmohan Singh appearing in his place expressed his inability to argue the case. The Court, however, did not consider it feasible "to wait for Ch. Bakhtawar Singh indefinitely" with the result that his arguments were closed and the case was adjourned to 13 -6 -1963. The Court was unable to dictate orders by 13 -6 -1963 because the Plaintiff's counsel had put in an Application for permission to "address arguments afresh". Parties then agreed that arguments may be heard after 4 P.M. on the following day i.e. 14 -6 -1963. The case was accordingly adjourned on payment of Rs. 25/ - as costs. On 14 -6 -1963 the counsel for the parties stated that it was not possible to argue the case on that day but they promised to address the arguments during the vacation on a date to be fixed by them after mutual consultation. The case was thus adjourned to 16 -7 -1963. On 16 -7 -1963 it appears that no date could be agreed upon between the counsel for the parties during the vacation with the result that written arguments by the counsel for the Plaintiff were filed to which the Defendants' counsel raised no objection. 23rd of July, 1963 was fixed for reply. On 23 -7 -1963 written arguments could not be prepared because of their length. The case was thus adjourned to 30 -7 -1963. On 30 -7 -1963 written arguments of the Defendants were put in and the case was adjourned to 6 -8 -1963 for the opposite party's reply. On 6 -8 -1963 the proceedings having been stayed nothing more was done by the Court. It appears that In the meantime on 5 -8 -1963 Dr. Hardit Singh had approached the learned District Judge for transfer of the case.
(3.) FROM the above narrative It is clear that the petitioning Defendant's counsel was throughout an acquiescing party to the various adjournments with the result that I find it difficult from this record to infer that there could be any reasonable apprehension In the mind of the Petitioner that he would not get justice from the learned Subordinate Judge on account of undue bias shown by him in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Petitioner. Had the petitioning Defendant opposed the adjournments and the learned Subordinate Judge had in face of such opposition granted adjournments, there might have been some basis for apprehending a biased leaning in favour of the Plaintiff.;