1 2026:CGHC:8410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 42 of 2024 Dhurandar Builders And Developers Through Its Partner Shri Keshav Dhurandhar S/o Late Mahendra Dhurandhar Age 74 Years, R/o Behind Colony Of State Bank, Sunderlal (Sundar Nagar), Raipur, Teh. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus 1. Shri Animesh Mishra S/o Shri T.R. Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o Plot No. 47, Krishna Sakha Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Daganiya, Raipur, Teh. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Hal Mukam Punjab National Bank, Circle Office Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 2. Krishna Sakha Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur Registration No. Cr/rpr/91 Year 1982-83 Through Authorized Officer/ President Arun Verma , S/o Shri Vishnu Sharma, R/o C-258, Rohinipuram, Daganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) TPC No. 39 of 2024 Dhurandar Builders And Developers Through Its Partner Shri Keshav Dhurandhar Son Of Late Mahendra Dhurandar Aged About 74 Years, Resident - Behind Colony Of State Bank, Sunderlal (Sundar Nagar), Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,...(Plaintiff) ---Applicant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Sohadra Dewangan W/o Shri Lakhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 63 Years Resident Of Plot No. 26, Krishna Sakha Sahkari Grih Nirman JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.02.19 10:48:02 +0530 2 Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Daganiya (Wrongly Mentioned As Danganiya), Raipur, Chhattisgarh,...(Defendants) 2. Krishna Sakha Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur Registration No. Cr/rpr/ 91 Year 1982-83, Through Authorised Officer / President Arun Verma, S/o Shri Vishnu Verma, R/o C-258, Rohini Puram, Daganiya (Wrongly Mentioned As Danganiya), Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) TPC No. 43 of 2024 Dhurandar Builders And Developers Through Its Partner Shri Keshav Dhurandhar S/o Late Mahendra Dhurandhar Age 74 Years, R/o Behind Colony Of State Bank, Sunderlal (Sundar Nagar), Raipur, Teh. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Maheshwari Dewangan W/o Late Mewalal Dewangan R/o Plot No. 27, Krishna Sakha Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Daganiya, Raipur, Teh. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Krishna Sakha Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur Registration No. Cr/rpr/91 Year 1982-83 Through Authorized Officer, Rohinipuram, Daganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 (in TPC No. 43/2024) : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/ Krishna Sakha Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 17/02/2026 3 1. Since common facts and grounds involved in all these petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. These petitions have been filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the petitioner seeking transfer of the Civil Suit Nos. 147-A/2014, 148-A/2014 and 133A-A/2014 pending before the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Raipur, C.G. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitions have been filed on account of a bona fide apprehension of bias against the learned Presiding Officer, before whom three civil suits of the petitioner are presently pending. It is contended that in a judgment passed in the year 2023, the learned Judge copied portions of an earlier judgment of 2019, though the parties and issues were different, and incorporated findings and precedents which were neither relevant nor argued in that case. On this basis, the petitioner apprehends that he may not receive fair adjudication and, therefore, prays for transfer of the pending suits to any other competent Court within the district. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that the allegations levelled against the concerned Presiding Officer, are wholly unfounded and based on mere conjectures. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any real likelihood of bias or prejudice, and the apprehension expressed is vague and without any substantive material. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to answer the query of the court that whether the judgment of 2023 & 2019 on the basis of which the petitioner is apprehending biases against the Presiding Officer has been challenged before any higher forum and what is the result. Hence, mere apprehension of biases by raising a question to earlier judgments of a Presiding Officer can not be a ground seeking transfer of proceeding to other Court. 7. Transfer of cases from one Court to another is a serious matter particularly when transfer is sought by making allegations against Presiding Officer. It sometimes indirectly causes doubt on the integrity and competence of Presiding Officer of the Court from whom the matter is transferred. In cases where ground for transfer is likelihood of bias of Presiding Officer, it is onerous duty of Court to see, whether such ground has been substantiated with reasonable certainty or not. It should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause. 8. One of the common ground which is generally taken is of distrust in Presiding Officer of the Court. Here the Courts have to be very careful while passing the orders for transfer of case. 9. The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved/ substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such petitioner before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer. 10. This Court in the case of Chandrashekhar Agrawal Vs. State of 5 C.G. and Ors in TPCR No. 14 of 2025 has held in paras 16 & 17 as under :- “16. The hierarchy gives appellate and supervisory powers in various ways. The supervisory control of District judiciary has been conferred upon High Court, which is the highest Court at provincial level and is under constitutional obligation to see effective functioning of District Courts by virtue of power conferred by Article 235 read with 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. If there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial Officer of District Court, the damage is caused not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of judiciary. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice. Reference may be made to the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Amit Agrawal vs. Atul Gupta, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine All 16200.” 11. In the light of the above exposition of law, the pleadings in the case in hand have been examined. The grounds taken by petitioner are vague and wholly unsubstantiated. 12. Accordingly, all the transfer petitions deserve to be and are hereby rejected. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti