Merely because short dates are given to the parties, no malice can be attributed on the Court: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Single Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul was hearing an application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for transfer of ‘RCSHM Case No.153/2019’ filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Sagar to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Sagar.

[NOTE: Section 24 of CPC embodies general power of transfer of any suit, appeal or other proceedings at any stage either on an application of any party or by a court of its motion]

This is trite that the Presiding Officer is the guardian of the judicial time and has complete discretion to fix the dates of hearing/proceeding. Unless the procedure adopted by the Court amounts to manifest propriety which caused prejudice to any party, this Court is not obliged to interfere.”

Further, the Court was not inclined to compare the dates of hearing given in this case with other cases because that cannot be a ground to interfere in the matter unless something more is shown. Something which shows that fixing of nearby dates has resulted in injustice to the other side.

The court further said,

“It cannot be left on the choice of the litigant to decide when his/her matter should be heard/decided. Mere apprehension of not getting an order in his/her favour without any proof thereof cannot be a ground to order the transfer of a case.

Case Details:-

Case Title: Aarti Sahu v. Ankit Sahu
Case No.: MCC No. 62/2020
Quorum: Justice Sujoy Paul
Appearance: Advocate Sourabh Singh (for the Applicant); Advocate Shivam Hazari (for the respondent)