HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 75 / 2017
Sampati W/o Dilip Choudhary, D/o Sh. Maniram Godara, Aged
About 34 Years, B/c Jat (Choudhary), R/o 1-D-5, Jahawar Nagar,
Shri Ganganagar (Raj.) At Present R/o Village Beenjbhayla, Distt.
Shri Ganganagar (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Dilip Choudhary S/o Sh. Prehlad Ram Choudhary, B/c Jat, R/o
Village- Jerthi (Subhash Nagar), Teh. Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
2. Shri L.D. Kiradu, RHJS, the Learned Judge Family Courty, Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Dr A.A. Bhansali
For Respondent(s) : Mr B.L. Choudhary, Mr Kshamendra Mathur
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
Date of Pronouncement: (28)/08/2017
This Transfer Application under sec.24 CPC has been filed for
transfer of Civil Original Case No.153/2015 (Dilip Choudhary v.
Sampati Godara), filed by the respondent No.1 against petitioner
under sec.13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before Family
Court, Sriganganagar, to any other court.
Briefly stated, marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 16.02.2010. The respondent No.1 filed a divorce petition
against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty under sec.13(i-a)
on 17.05.2014 before Family Court, Sikar. That case was ordered
to be transferred to Family Court, Sri Ganganagar by order of this
Court in Transfer Petition No.86/2014.
(2 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
The petitioner filed her reply in the divorce petition. The
Family Court, on the basis of pleadings, framed issues on
19.09.2015. Thereafter, the respondent filed an affidavit on
19.12.2015 for the purpose of recording evidence before the trial
court. The petitioner had filed an application under sec.9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act before the trial court for restitution of conjugal
rights, in which respondent No.1 Dilip filed reply on 25.04.2014.
Thereafter, an application under sec.21-A of the Hindu
Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner for consolidation of both
proceedings, under sec.13 and under sec.9 of the Act, which was
allowed by the trial court on 11.01.2016. After passing of the
order for consolidation of both cases, the trial court re-framed
issues on 10.02.2016.
After consolidation of both cases, the respondent No.1 again
filed an affidavit on 06.02.2016 for the purpose of recording
evidence, along with certain documents. After filing of affidavit by
the respondent No.1, an application under sec.151 CPC was filed
on behalf of petitioner on 05.03.2016 before the trial court,
alleging that prior to filing of documents, no permission was
sought and therefore, said documents could not be taken on
record and the party should not be allowed to mark exhibits on
said documents. The application was replied.
The trial court, after hearing arguments, dismissed
petitioner’s application vide order dated 04.04.2016, against which
petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5555/2016 (Sampati v.
Dilip Choudhary anr) and an interim order dated 19.05.2016
was passed by the High Court by which further proceedings before
(3 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
the trial court were stayed. The writ petition was later on
dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2017. It was observed by the
High Court that:
“Needless to say that the documents produced by the
respondent having been taken on record, the petitioner
cannot be denied an opportunity to produce the evidence in
rebuttal. Further, the petitioner is not precluded from raising
the objection regarding admissibility of the documents
produced in evidence on account of the same being beyond
the pleadings or otherwise inadmissible in evidence.”
Thereafter, the case was listed before the trial court on
12.04.2017, on which date the trial court decided application filed
under sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the case was fixed for
03.05.2017. On that day, an application under Order 6 rule 17
CPC was filed by the petitioner. No reply to said application was
filed by the respondent. On the same day arguments on said
application were heard by the trial court. The trial court allowed
the application on 03.05.2017 but at the same time case was fixed
to 05.05.2017 for the purpose of filing amended application under
sec.9 of the Act. It was also ordered by the trial court that if the
respondent wants to file reply to the amended application then he
may do so on the next day i.e. 06.05.2017. The trial court also
observed that both cases are pending for long time and an
application under O.6 r.17 CPC has been filed today with intention
to delay the proceedings when the witnesses are present for
cross-examination and cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed upon the
petitioner, payable on the next date.
In this respect, it was alleged that on one hand, when
application for amendment was allowed on 03.05.2017 then in no
(4 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
case evidence could be adduced and cross-examination could take
place until unless amendment application is taken on record and
reply, if any, is filed by the opposite side. On the other hand, the
trial court ignoring this aspect of the matter, ordered that since
witnesses could not be cross-examined, therefore, cost of
Rs.5000/- was imposed. If the amendment application was not
allowed then granting time at a cost could be justified. Not only
this, on 03.05.2017 itself the trial court even fixed next dates as
11.05.2017 and 12.05.2017 for the purpose of evidence. Though,
the proceedings on 05.05.2017 and 06.05.2017 were yet to take
place. From the facts mentioned above, it has borne to mind of
the petitioner that the court is proceeding in haste manner in
fixing dates in the cases a step ahead, without there being
completion of proceedings in pursuance of the order on
05.05.2017 and 06.05.2017.
It was also alleged that the respondent No.2 called the
petitioner in Chamber and directed her that the respondent No.1
has decided to marry with someone else who he had already
chosen, therefore, the petitioner should take divorce from him.
The respondent No.2 also told to petitioner that since she could
not give birth to any child, therefore, on this count also she should
give divorce to the respondent No.1. When the petitioner heard
such directions from the respondent No.2, she was surprised that
how the respondent No.2 could give such directions as judge of
the court, without there being any evidence and without passing
any order of the court. When petitioner came out of Chamber of
the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 also told to petitioner
(5 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
that now nothing remains in the case and it will be decided soon,
which is evident in the manner in which dates have been fixed by
the court and divorce petition will be allowed by the court.
All these facts go to show that the respondent No.2 is
prejudiced and biased against the petitioner. It was also alleged
that the respondent No.2, who is Presiding Officer of the court, is
taking personal interest in favour of respondent No.1, further
respondent No.2 is biased prejudiced with the petitioner, for the
reasons best known to both respondents.
It was contended that the manner in which the proceedings
are being conducted by the respondent No.2, makes it clear that
there is hardly any chance of getting justice by petitioner from the
court of respondent No.2. If that would be so then the petitioner
would be deprived of justice. On basis of these averments,
transfer of the cases was sought from the Family Court, Sri
Ganganagar to any other appropriate court.
A reply to Transfer Application was filed by the respondent
No.1. It was stated that after consolidation of respondent’s divorce
petition and petitioner’s petition under sec.9 of the Act, date was
fixed for 25.01.2016 and on the next date 06.02.2016, the
answering respondent submitted 03 witnesses’ affidavits and filed
some documents but on same day, the petitioner filed an
application under Order 14 rule 5 CPC, stating that as both the
petitions were consolidated, the issues were required to be re-
framed and the answering respondent did not raise objection. The
trial court re-framed issues on the same day and fixed date
05.03.2016 for cross-examination. On that day, three witnesses of
(6 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
respondent were present but the petitioner did not cross-examine
the witnesses and sought adjournment, then trial court imposed
cost of Rs.3000/- and fixed next date as 28.03.2016.
On that day, all three witnesses appeared but petitioner did
not cross-examine but moved three applications; one under
sec.151 CPC, in which she stated that said documents filed by the
answering respondent in support of affidavits being without
permission of the court, the same may not be taken on record;
the second application was filed under Order 6 rule 2 CPC, in
which the petitioner stated that the answering respondent filed
affidavit but para 15 thereof is not part of pleadings and the same
may be deleted; the third application filed under sec.151 CPC
stated that the plaintiff filed affidavit in support of his evidence on
19.12.2015 and another affidavit on 06.02.2016 and stated that
affidavit of witnesses filed on 06.02.2016 may not be taken on
record and the petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine on
affidavits filed on 19.12.2015. Those applications were dismissed
by the trial court on 04.04.2016 after hearing both the parties.
Thereafter, the answering respondent filed an application
under sec.21(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with order 17(1)
CPC and the matter was fixed to 18.05.2016 for filing reply and
arguments and also for cross-examination. On 04.06.2016, the
petitioner moved an application and also submitted stay order
granted by the High Court on 19.05.2016 and the matter was
adjourned. Dates were fixed as 16.07.2016, 17.09.2016,
15.10.2016, 19.11.2016, 23.12.2016, 28.01.2017, 10.02.2017
and 08.03.2017.
(7 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
It was also contended that the petitioner is a lawyer and she
very well know how to delay the matter, therefore, the petitioner
has moved several applications on false grounds and without
being any reason. Said applications were not filed as per law. The
applications were filed only to delay the proceedings.
In his reply, the respondent No.1 denied the averments of
the transfer petition and stated that the facts are concealed by the
petitioner concerned to 12.04.2017 when the trial court decided
application under sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In this regard,
it was stated that said application was decided by the trial court
on 12.04.2017 separately. On 12.04.2017, the answering
respondent submitted order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the High
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5555/2016 but the petitioner
did not cross-examine the witnesses though said witnesses were
present before the trial court and intentionally, for delaying
tactics, one application was filed on fabricated grounds. The
answering respondent produced documents and photographs and
voice-recordings. After hearing the arguments, said application
was dismissed by the trial court on the same day. The trial court
granted time to the petitioner for examination of said witnesses on
the count that she is lady. The trial court also observed that on the
next date if the witnesses are not cross-examined then the
opportunity may be closed. On this observation, the petitioner
gave consent before the trial court and next date was fixed as per
her convenience on 03.05.2017.
Three witnesses were present before the trial court for cross-
examination but the petitioner intentionally filed an application for
(8 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
delaying the matter and she again moved an application under
Order 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment of her application and reply.
The trial court allowed said amendment application without any
cost but the petitioner wrongly mentioned in said para that the
trial court allowed the application at the cost of Rs.5000/-. This
fact was wrongly mentioned but three witnesses personally
appeared before the trial court and expenses were borne by the
answering respondent then the trial court imposed cost upon
petitioner for the purpose of expenses of witnesses.
The trial court also fixed next date for filing of amended
application on 05.05.2017 and 06.05.2017 and also date was fixed
for cross-examination of witnesses on 11.05.2017 and
12.05.2017. On that date, as per request of the petitioner
reconciliation was made by the court but the same failed and the
matter was fixed for 05.05.2017.
In the reply, averments contained in para 15 of Transfer
Petition were also denied and on the basis of the reply, the
Transfer Petition was sought to be dismissed.
An additional affidavit was also filed by petitioner Sampati
and it was alleged that right from the beginning, from joining of
the present Presiding Officer, from bare perusal of order-sheets of
the matter pending before the trial court, it is crystal clear that he
is in pressure or conspired with respondent Dilip Choudhary. Even
though when he draws the order-sheets on the file, he always
writes statements which give favour to respondent Dilip
Choudhary and what she states is never taken on record. Looking
to behaviour of the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, she filed
(9 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
an application before the Presiding Officer and drew his attention
towards his behaviour then the Presiding Officer called her in
Chamber and threatened for initiating contempt proceedings. It
was also alleged that again when she went to court from dais the
Presiding Officer mount pressure on her to give divorce to
respondent Dilip Choudhary but she refused to act on suggestion
by the Presiding Officer and stated that she is going to High Court
against him and thereafter present Transfer Petition was filed.
It was also contended that 02.06.2017 she personally
appeared before this Court, the respondent No.1 also appeared
and she requested for interim relief because lawyers were not
appearing in the Court. In absence of the counsel, the Court
stated that unless the counsel will not remain present till then the
Court can not pass any interim order. The petitioner made request
to the Court that the next date before the trial court is fixed as
12.06.2017 and the Presiding Officer is taking favour of
respondent. On this request, the Court gave her liberty to file an
application for adjournment before the trial court and on this, the
respondent No.1 also gave consent that till vacation, he will not
pursue the matter before the trial court. Upon oral consent, the
Court adjourned the matter on 02.06.2017 with the observation –
“List on 05th July 2017.
The appellant is on liberty to prefer application for obtaining
time before the trial court, since application seeking interim
relief is not being taken up for hearing because learned
Advocates for both the sides are not appearing today.”
It was also contended that on 12.06.2017, an application
along with order of the High Court dated 02.06.2016 was placed
(10 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
before the trial court and petitioner requested to adjourn the
matter till 05.07.2017. Copy of the application was served on
respondent No.1 also. After receiving the copy, respondent No.1
surprisingly denied that he never gave oral consent before the
High Court on 02.06.2017. Upon this statement of the respondent
No.1, the Presiding Officer refused to adjourn the matter and
passed a detailed order against her while disobeying order of the
High Court and the matter was fixed for petitioner’s evidence.
It is relevant to mention that on 02.06.2017, due to non-
working of Advocate her counsel was not present before the High
Court and specific direction by the High Court to file application for
seeking time clearly shows intention that upon filing the
application, the trial court should stop proceeding further till
05.07.2017 but the order of the High Court was ignored by the
Presiding Officer and the next date was fixed as 19.06.2017 and
gave her warning that if on that day she does not present then he
will close the evidence and pass divorce decree.
It was also contended that on 12.06.2017, copy of the
application along with copy of order of the High Court was sent
through her counsel for submitting before the trial court because
on that the petitioner was suffering from pain in stomach. When
petitioner’s counsel filed the application then the Presiding Officer
intentionally refused to accept the same and asked her counsel
that this application and copy of the order will be taken on record
only when it will be filed by the petitioner herself. When the
petitioner appeared before the Presiding Officer then again she
was threatened that – “rqe ,y-,y-ch- gks] rqEgsa irk gksuk pkfg;s fd ,Iyhds’ku dSls
(11 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
nh tkrh gS] igys esjs lkeus qdks] vkSj mlds ckn ekQh ekaxks vkSj izkFkZuk i is’k djks”. It
was also contended that due to health problem the petitioner was
admitted in hospital on 18.06.2017 and 19.06.2017 as per
petitioner’s instructions her counsel submitted an application for
adjournment and informed that as petitioner was admitted in the
hospital, she could not appear before the court. The trial court
adjourned the matter and fixed on 27.06.2017 for arguments on
adjournment application and evidence of non-applicant.
It was further contended that on 25.06.2017 the petitioner
was again admitted in hospital in Orthopedic department due to
pain in backbone and also suffering from cervical pain. On
27.06.2017 an application along with hospital documents was
submitted before the trial court through her counsel. A detailed
order was passed on 27.06.2017 while discussing detail of facts. It
was also alleged that the Presiding Officer conspired with the
respondent Dilip Choudhary and he always takes favour of
respondent Dilip Choudhary. The conduct of the Presiding Officer
as well as fourth-class employee of the Family Court is unethical
and amounts to misconduct.
A reply to the Additional Affidavit was also filed on behalf of
respondent No.1, denying the facts of the additional affidavit.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused order-
sheets of the trial court placed on record.
Initially the respondent No.1 filed a Divorce Petition against
the petitioner on the grounds of cruelty before the Family Court,
Sikar. At the instance of petitioner, in S.B. Civil Transfer Petition
No.86/2014, the High Court transferred respondent’s divorce
(12 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
petition to the Family Court, Sriganganagar. The petitioner filed an
application under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the
respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Both these petitions
were consolidated. On perusal of order-sheet dated 03.05.2017, it
is clear that an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC was filed,
which was alleged to be filed at belated stage but looking to
subsequent events, that application was allowed and it was
ordered by the trial court that on 05.05.2017, amended petition
may be filed i.e. just after two days and it was also mentioned
that on 06.05.2017, reply to amended petition may be filed, if so
desired by the respondent-husband. It was also alleged that the
respondent No.2 called the petitioner in Chamber and told her that
respondent No.1 has decided to marry with someone else who he
had already chosen, therefore, the petitioner should take divorce
from him. The respondent No.2 also told to petitioner that since
she could not give birth to any child, therefore, on this count also
she should give divorce to the respondent No.1.
This Court sought explanation from the respondent No.2.
Perused the explanation. It was submitted by the respondent No.2
that the present case was placed before for first time on
17.05.2014 and three years have passed. During this period,
evidence of the husband is complete and the case is fixed for
evidence of petitioner-wife for first time. The petitioner did not
mention any reason for non-presence of witnesses nor did he file
any affidavit. She only mentioned that she is to file a transfer
petition before the High Court. It was admitted that a Transfer
Petition was filed before the High Court and on 02.06.2017 this
(13 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
Court passed order that “the applicant is on liberty to prefer
application for obtaining time before the trial court because
learned Advocates for both sides are not appearing today” and the
case was directed to be listed on 05th July 2017.
This was sufficient reason for the trial court to adjourn the
case and wait for order of this Court but the trial judge in his
explanation submitted that without sufficient cause last
opportunity was granted to counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of
this Court passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.626/2010 (United
India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt Prem others) decided on
07.09.2011, wherein it was observed:
“Once the Tribunal was aware that appeal challenging the
impugned award is pending before this Court and the
process has already been issued for the same, then the
learned Tribunal could have waited for further orders of this
Court in appeal/stay application filed with the said appeal”.
In view of the ratio of decision in that case, there was
sufficient reason for the petitioner to seek time before the trial
court in pursuance of order of this Court dated 02.06.2017.
The counsel for the petitioner, arguing on grounds of bias,
has placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court reported in 2012
AIR SCW 207 (State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
ors etc WITH Sumedh Singh Saini v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
ors.) and argued that allegations of judicial bias are required to be
scrutinized taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case
in hand. Actual proof of prejudice is not required. What is relevant
(14 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
is the reasonableness of apprehension in that regard in mind of
the party.
The counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice P.D.
Dinakaran v. Hon’ble Judges Inquiry Committee: (2011) 8
SCC 380 and contended that Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in
that case that:
“The first requirement of natural justice is that the Judge
should be impartial and neutral and must be free from
bias. He is supposed to be indifferent to the parties to the
controversy. He cannot act as Judge of a cause in which
he himself has some interest either pecuniary or
otherwise as it affords the strongest proof against
neutrality. He must be in a position to act judicially and to
decide the matter objectively. A Judge must be of sterner
stuff. His mental equipoise must always remain firm and
undetected. He should not allow his personal prejudice
to go into the decision-making. The object is not merely
that the scales be held even; it is also that they may not
appear to be inclined. If the Judge is subject to bias in
favour of or against either party to the dispute or is in a
position that a bias can be assumed, he is disqualified to
act as a Judge, and the proceedings will be vitiated. This
rule applies to the judicial and administrative authorities
required to act judicially or quasi-judicially.”
Thus, it is evident that the allegations of judicial bias
are required to be scrutinised taking into consideration the
factual matrix of the case in hand. The court must bear in
mind that a mere ground of appearance of bias and not
actual bias is enough to vitiate the judgment/order. Actual
proof of prejudice in such a case may make the case of
the party concerned stronger, but such a proof is not
required. In fact, what is relevant is the reasonableness of
the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party.
However, once such an apprehension exists, the
(15 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]trial/judgment/order etc. stands vitiated for want of
impartiality. Such judgment/order is a nullity and the trial
“coram non-judice”.
In the present case, it was alleged by the petitioner that the
respondent No.2 Presiding Officer called petitioner in Chamber and
directed her that the respondent No.1 had decided to marry with
someone else, whom he had already chosen, therefore, the
petitioner should take divorce from him and also told her that
since she can not give birth to a child, therefore also she should
give divorce to respondent No.1. There is no evidence as to what
actually happened in the Chamber of respondent No.2 and nothing
has been stated regarding this allegation in the explanation
submitted by the respondent No.2. In view of this, actual proof of
such statement is not required. It creates a reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the respondent
No.2 is prejudiced and biased against the petitioner.
Reliance has also been placed on decision rendered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan
Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust Others: AIR 2008
SC 1333, in which it was observed:
“14. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases
cannot be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron
formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot
be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be
exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.
Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and
keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain
broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for
transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of
convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or
(16 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular
place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the
points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties;
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he
might not get justice in the court in which the suit is
pending; important questions of law involved or a
considerable section of public interested in the litigation;
interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or
other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances
which are germane in considering the question of transfer of
a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however,
illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as
exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations,
the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not
likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to
transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the
Court to make such order.”
Counsel for the respondent No.1 while opposing the transfer
application placed reliance on 2008 (2) CCC 427 (Raj.):
Virendra Bhushan v. Rajendra Kumar Verma and argued that
witnesses of plaintiff were not cross-examined despite several
opportunities, the counsel sought time for cross-examination,
judge lost his temper and made some observation against
defendant. The defendant made an application for transfer of his
case as he had an apprehension of not getting justice. The Court
held that it is not a ground to transfer the case.
He also placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in
Criminal Appeal No.222/2015 (Arising out of SLP (Cr)
No.881/2014): Kanaklata v. State (NCT) of Delhi ors and
argued that any casual observation made by a Presiding Officer of
trial court would not be a sufficient ground for transfer, for the
reason that the trial courts work in a charged atmosphere and
(17 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
they do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the
higher courts so as to think cooly and decide patiently.
Reliance has also been placed on judgment in Transfer
Application No.511/2014 (Ram Prakash v. District Judge, Ballia
16 others) to argue that mere suspicion by the party that he will
not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a
reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a
Judge legitimately can not be made foundation for a transfer of
case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and
ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one court to
another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such
grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a
case, not otherwise.
Perused the judgments cited by the parties. When there is
allegation of judicial bias, the allegations are required to be
scrutinized taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case
in hand. Although actual proof of prejudice is not relevant but
what is relevant is reasonable apprehension in that regard in the
mind of the party. The cause of reasonable apprehension as
contained in para 15 of the Transfer Application, wherein the
petitioner mentioned that- the respondent No.2 called her in
Chamber and directed that the respondent No.1 had decided to
marry with someone else, whom he had already chosen,
therefore, the petitioner should take divorce from him and also
told her that since she can not give birth to a child, therefore also
she should give divorce to respondent No.1; is sufficient to create
(18 of 18)
[CTA-75/2017]
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. Justice
should not only be done but it should seem to have been done.
It is important to note that in spite of interim order of this
Court passed on 02.06.2017, the learned trial judge did not find
the same sufficient reason to adjourn the case as prayed. Under
these circumstances, the present transfer petition deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, this Transfer Application is allowed and the
Civil Original Case No.153/2015 (Dilip Choudhary v. Sampati
Godara) pending before the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar is
transferred to the court of District Judge, Sri Ganganagar.
(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.
mma/27