Merely Because Short Dates Are Given To The Parties, No Malice Can Be Attributed To The Court: Madhya Pradesh HC [Read Order]

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]

Arguments put forth by the Counsels of the Parties

It was contended by the Counsel of the Applicant that the manner in which the Family Court was proceeding in the matter, the applicant has no faith in the said Court.

He further requested that the matter may either be transferred to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Sagar or Family Court, Damoh.

In order to point out the alleged impropriety on the part of the Family Court, the Counsel for the Applicant stated that on 15.7.2019, the notices were issued by the Family Court on the application filed by the other side under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The present applicant appeared before the Family Court on 08.08.2019. Thereafter, the Family Court is proceeding on a day to day basis which is arbitrary and is against the interest of the applicant.

The Counsel further urged that in many other cases pending before the Family Court for more than one year, no such interest was shown by the Family Court but "the extra-ordinary interest shown in the instant case became the reason to approach this Court."

The Counsel for the respondent contended that the orders on which reliance is placed by the applicant shows that in those cases the parties were not local.

In other words, it was argued that since parties' addresses were out of Sagar, the Court in its wisdom might have given a longer date to ensure service of notice whereas, in the instant case, both the parties are residing at Sagar.

The Court's Observation

The Court was of the view that it was not pointed out to this Court as to how short dates have caused prejudice to the applicant.

In this context the court said,

"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." (emphasis supplied)

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." (emphasis supplied)

In view of the foregoing analysis, the Court didn't find any reason to order the transfer of 'RCSHM Case No.153/2019'. The Court below was directed to hear and decide the instant matrimonial matter strictly in accordance with the law. The application sans substance was thereby dismissed.

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)

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]