Delhi Court Imposes 10K Cost On Frivolous Litigant Accusing Judge Of Threatening With Judicial Powers
A Delhi Court has imposed Rs. 10,000 cost on a litigant who had sought transfer of his case alleging bias against the presiding Judge. It was alleged that during the proceedings, the Judge threatened the Petitioner's counsel of showing his judicial powers.Finding the allegations to be baseless and the petition to be devoid of merits, District & Sessions Judge Girish Kathpalia dismissed...
A Delhi Court has imposed Rs. 10,000 cost on a litigant who had sought transfer of his case alleging bias against the presiding Judge. It was alleged that during the proceedings, the Judge threatened the Petitioner's counsel of showing his judicial powers.
Finding the allegations to be baseless and the petition to be devoid of merits, District & Sessions Judge Girish Kathpalia dismissed the transfer plea. The Judge further expressed dismay over the growing trend of dragging Judicial Officers into frivolous complaints.
"It is indeed sad state of affairs that in the recent past a trend is growing where the Judicial Officers are dragged into the dock and they have to defend themselves constantly in order to protect themselves from frivolous complaints. The Judicial Officers in such situations have no choice, but to defend themselves to the hilt. Not just some of the litigants, but even some lawyers do not think twice before filing reckless complaints and transfer petitions in order to avoid contesting the lis on merits. In such cases, should the system even snatch away right of the Judicial Officer to defend his dignity ? No," the Judge added.
The Court was also of the view that if the case is transferred out of the court of the concerned Judicial Officer, such an approach would further encourage the litigants to indulge in forum shopping by leveling allegations against a Judicial Officer in order to protract and get the proceedings transferred.
The petitioner, facing eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act had sought transfer of the proceedings out of the court CCJ-cum-ARC judge to some other court of competent jurisdiction.
The petitioner however submitted that he had opted not to explicitly incorporate the comments made by the concerned Judicial Officer in the petition "out of decency and in order to uphold majesty of court" and had left the same as blank.
The Court had then directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in a sealed cover, testifying the alleged comments of the Judicial Officer in Hindi.
The affidavit of the petitioner stated thus: "..nyaayaadhish ji taish mein aakar bole ki vakeel sahab aap ko meri power ka gyan nahi hai, main aapko dinaank 31.03.2021 to apni power dikhaaungaa aur agli tareekh 31.03.2021 ki tareekh nishchit kar di" (the concerned Judicial Officer got enraged and told the proxy counsel for the present petitioner that the counsel did not know powers of the Judicial Officer and he would show his powers on 31.03.2021)."
The Court had also requested the concerned Judicial Officer to send his comments in a sealed cover.
Coming to the facts of the case and perusing the responses, the Court said:
"…can it be said that a reasonable man would infer that the present petitioner might not get justice from the concerned Judicial Officer in view of the circumstances set up by the petitioner ? The answer has to be in negative."
"It is quite unfortunate that on the very first date when this petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner created such a docudramatic situation to create alarm in the mind of this court by stating that the comments made by the concerned Judicial Officer were such that "out of decency and to uphold the majesty of court" he had left the comments portion blank in the petition. And when the petitioner filed his affidavit in Hindi, the alleged comments turned out to be hardly indecent."
The Court also added that there was nothing in the alleged comments, which could not be mentioned in the petition itself and that the effort was to somehow create an alarm and obtain an ex-parte stay on the proceedings before the concerned Judicial Officer.
The Court also noted that the respondent as well as the concerned Judicial Officer denied making any statement that he got enraged and threatened to show the petitioner his powers.
"Besides, it is not possible to fathom that without any provocation, the concerned Judicial Officer would have got enraged. It appears that complete picture has not been presented before this court by the petitioner," the judge said.
It added:
"There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the concerned Judicial Officer would get prejudiced and not continue to remain judicious while adjudicating the subject proceedings, merely because the petitioner tried to get the subject proceedings transferred on the basis of such scandalized projection."
"Also, it would severely demoralize the District Judiciary to see that any litigant can allege anything, casting aspersions on the Judicial Officers as happened in the present case, where the impression conveyed through the petition and submissions was that it is "out of decency" that the utterances of the concerned Judicial Officer were not quoted in the transfer petition."
Therefore, noting that there was absolutely nothing on record to show that a reasonable man would infer likelihood of bias in the present matter, the Court held that the transfer petition was not only completely devoid of any merit but also frivolous and an attempt at protracting the proceedings before the concerned court by levelling baseless allegations.
"Therefore, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent before the concerned court of Additional Rent Controller within one week towards litigation cost of the respondent pertaining to these proceedings," the judge ordered.