The High Court of Delhi, presided over by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, has ruled that the power to transfer a case under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) cannot be invoked merely on the basis of a litigant’s apprehension arising from oral observations made by a judge during proceedings. Dismissing a petition seeking the transfer of a commercial suit from a Delhi trial court, the High Court held that leveling unsupported allegations against a judicial officer amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a transfer petition filed under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the CPC by Mohammad Ahmad. The petitioner sought the transfer of commercial suit CS (COMM.) 394/2025, titled Asha Malik v. Mohammad Ahmad, along with connected proceedings MISC. DJ 320/2026 and Execution (Commercial) 32/2026. The proceedings were pending before the Court of the District Judge (Commercial Court-04), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and the petitioner requested their transfer to any other competent Commercial Court in Delhi.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner entertained a genuine and reasonable apprehension of not being able to secure a fair adjudication before the trial court. It was contended that this apprehension arose due to certain oral observations and statements made by the trial court during the course of hearings.
Specifically, the petitioner submitted that the trial court expressed reluctance to entertain an application filed under Order XI Rule 13 of the CPC. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that the trial court extended undue indulgence to counsel for the respondents by advising them regarding the filing of applications seeking the petitioner’s detention. Arguing that these apprehensions were neither fanciful nor imaginary, the petitioner prayed for the proceedings to be transferred.
Court’s Analysis
Upon evaluating the petition and hearing the submissions, the High Court observed that the principal foundation for seeking the transfer rested solely on oral observations allegedly made during courtroom exchanges. The court emphasized that “allegations of such nature against a Judicial Officer cannot be lightly made merely on the basis of oral observations or statements made during the course of a hearing.”
The court highlighted the nature of judicial proceedings, noting that “A judicial proceeding necessarily involves interaction between the Court and the counsel appearing before it, and observations made during the course of such proceedings cannot, by themselves, be treated as a determination of the issues arising between the parties.”
The High Court pointed out that the petitioner failed to show any actual adjudication by the trial court where his substantive rights were adversely determined due to bias or preferential treatment. Addressing the trial court’s alleged reluctance to entertain the Order XI Rule 13 CPC application, the High Court stated that an unadjudicated oral expression cannot constitute a sufficient basis for extraordinary relief under Section 24 CPC, adding that any final order passed by the trial court could be challenged through appropriate legal remedies.
Regarding allegations of indulgence and advice to the respondent’s counsel, the court noted that these were serious allegations against a judicial officer that should not be made in a routine manner based merely on a litigant’s interpretation of oral exchanges.
The High Court affirmed that “the power of transfer under Section 24 of the CPC cannot be invoked merely because a litigant has developed an apprehension based upon the oral observations made during the course of proceedings.” Strongly deprecating the inclusion of such allegations without substantiating material, the court ruled that the petition “amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.”
Decision
The High Court dismissed the transfer petition along with all pending applications. It directed the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks and to place proof of deposit on record within one week thereafter.
Case Title: Mohammad Ahmad v. Asha Malik and Anr.
Case No.: TR.P.(C.) 144/2026, CM APPL. 52579/2026, CM APPL. 52580/2026 & CM APPL. 52581/2026
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: August 10, 2026
