HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Trp(C) No. 16/2025 Reserved on: 10.07.2025 Pronounced on 16.07.2025. Jatinder Koul ….petitioners Through :- Mr. Sahil Koul Advocate. V/s Ajay Mahajan and others Through :- Mr. K.S.Johal Sr. Advocate with Mr. Supreet S. Johal Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1 The present petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of two civil suits for ejectment, bearing File Nos. 2047/2020 (Registration No. 06/2020) and 2046/2020 (Registration No. 07/2020), from the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu to any other competent subordinate Court. The main ground urged in support of the petition is the alleged apprehension of bias and undue haste on the part of the trial Court, which, according to the petitioner, is adversely affects his right to defend the suits effectively. Factual Matrix: 2 The respondents/plaintiffs instituted two separate suits for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner/defendant in respect of premises bearing No. 32 A/C, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, one 2 pertaining to the ground floor, and the other concerning the first floor. Vide common order dated 27.05.2023, the Court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu allowed the respondents’ applications under Section 12(4) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 9,49,495 in each of the suits. Simultaneously, the petitioner’s applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Section 35-A CPC, and Section 94(e) read with Section 151 CPC were dismissed. Upon the petitioner’s failure to comply with the said directions, his defence was struck off vide order dated 15.06.2023. 3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of CR Nos. 27/2023 and 28/2023. Vide order dated 29.11.2024, this Court had allowed the said revisions, setting aside the orders impugned therein, and restoring the petitioner’s defence while granting liberty to the respondents to file a fresh application for recovery of arrears of rent from April 2020 onwards.Thereafter, the respondents filed fresh applications under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC for recovery of arrears of rent from April 2020 to December 2024. The petitioner sought adjournments to file objections on the ground that a report was awaited in another matter pending before the Court of Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu. His application for extension of time was rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu vide order dated 30.01.2025, holding that pendency of another proceeding could not justify delay in the instant matter. The matter was thereafter listed on 28.02.2025. On that date, although the petitioner appeared in person and submitted adjournment slips supported by medical records of his counsel, the trial Court directed him to deposit arrears of rent within fifteen days, failing which his defence would be struck off. Subsequently, vide order dated 3 17.03.2025, the trial Court dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 94(e) CPC and proceed to strike off his defence. 4 On 31.05.2025, this Court, while issuing notice in the present petition, stayed further proceedings before the trial Court, subject to objections and further modification. Para-wise comments were also called from the trial Court. The learned trial Court, in its para-wise reply, denied the allegations made in the petition and submitted that the petitioner had been indulging in dilatory tactics and was not cooperating with the trial.It is relevant to note that the present suits had earlier been transferred from the Court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu to the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu on similar allegations of bias. 5 The respondents have filed detailed objections to this transfer petition contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has not paid rent since the year 2016 and has been resorting to filing repetitive and frivolous applications with the sole objective of delaying adjudication. The allegations of bias against the learned Presiding Officer have been categorically denied and are stated to be baseless and motivated. 6 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that the trial Court is acting in undue haste and that repeated adjournments sought on genuine grounds, including on account of counsel’s medical condition, have been unfairly rejected. It is submitted that the trial Court is deliberately attempting to pronounce judgment before CM(M) Nos. 90/2025 and 91/2025, which are pending before this Court, are decided. It is also submitted that the 4 Presiding Officer is acting under the influence of counsel for the respondents and that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. 8 On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petition is devoid of merit, and is a blatant abuse of process. It has been contended that the allegations against the Presiding Officer are unfounded and appear to be part of deliberate strategy by the petitioner to delay the proceedings and evade compliance with lawful directions regarding the deposit of rent. 9 Upon hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, the issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the petitioner has established a justifiable ground for transfer of the suits under Section 24 of the CPC. 10 Section 24 CPC vests discretionary power in this Court to transfer any suit, appeal or proceeding from one Court to another, but such discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. It is a settled position of law that vague, unsubstantiated or reckless allegations of bias or prejudice do not constitute sufficient ground for transfer. 11 In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that assurance of a fair trial is fundamental to the dispensation of justice. However, mere apprehension or subjective perception of bias, unless backed by cogent material, cannot justify the transfer of proceedings. Paragraph (2) of the judgment is relevant to the context and is reproduced hereunder: “2.Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to 5 consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like minigrievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touch-stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances”. 12 From the perusal of record, it is manifest that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunities to file objections to the respondents’ applications seeking arrears of rent. The record reveals that the petitioner was granted as many as five opportunities over a span of two months to file objections, which he failed to do. Order XVII Rule 1 CPC allows a civil court to grant only three adjournments for sufficient cause with recorded reasons. The repeated indulgence extended by the trial Court, despite the petitioner's non-compliance, shows that the Court acted not in haste but with considerable latitude.Further, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in CR Nos. 27/2023 and 28/2023, the respondents filed a fresh application for arrears of rent. However, the petitioner yet again failed to file objections despite multiple opportunities, leading to the striking off of his defence. The trial Court considered the adjournment applications and found them unjustified in the circumstances. The conduct of the trial Court, as borne out from the record, appears consistent with procedural fairness and judicial propriety. No credible or cogent material has been placed on record to substantiate the serious allegations of bias or undue influence. The petitioner’s assertion that the Court is “trying to destroy his case” is not only unwarranted and unsubstantiated but also wholly improper. Allegations casting aspersions on 6 the integrity of a judicial officer without any factual foundation are to be deprecated in the strongest terms. The record also indicates that the petitioner has not paid rent since 2016. His consistent non-compliance with the directions of the Court and his failure to prosecute the proceedings with diligence raise serious questions about his bona fides.The fact that the suits were earlier transferred from one Court to another on similar grounds further strengthens the inference that the present petition is part of a pattern of forum shopping and delay tactics. Moreover, CM(M) Nos. 90/2025 and 91/2025, on which heavy reliance was placed by the petitioner to allege undue haste, have been dismissed by this Court vide order of even date. Hence, the grievance that the trial Court was attempting to pre-empt those proceedings no longer survives. 13 In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that no valid or sustainable ground for transfer of the suits is made out. The apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are vague, unsubstantiated, and contrary to the record. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 31.05.2025 is vacated. The learned Principal District Judge, Jammu shall proceed with the trial of the suits expeditiously and in accordance with law. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned for information and compliance. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Jammu 16 .07.2025 sanjeev Whether approved for judgment: Yes/No