Litigants dissatisfied with the atmosphere of a courtroom sometimes seek refuge in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, asking that their case be moved to another court. The order of the Delhi High Court in Mohammad Ahmad v. Asha Malik, TR.P.(C.) 144/2026, decided on 10 August 2026 by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, is a firm reminder that the power is exercised on proof of a real apprehension of injustice, not on a party’s reading of a judge’s remarks — and that unfounded petitions attract costs.
The petition
The petitioner sought transfer of a commercial suit, CS (COMM.) 394/2025, pending before the Commercial Court-04 of the Shahdara district, to any other commercial court in Delhi. The ground was a claimed apprehension that he would not secure a fair adjudication: he pointed to oral observations said to have been made by the presiding judge during hearings, and to what he characterised as undue indulgence shown to opposing counsel.
The order
The High Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000. The reasoning is of general application. A courtroom is a place of dialogue: 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. Judges test propositions, express provisional views and press counsel on weaknesses; none of that is adjudication.
The Court noted that no adverse order on the petitioner’s substantive rights had been passed. Without such an adjudication, or other objective material, the apprehension of unfairness remained an impression — and impressions do not satisfy Section 24.
The test under Section 24
The apprehension of injustice must be reasonable — that is, the apprehension of a reasonable person in the position of the litigant, judged from objective material, not the subjective anxiety of a party invested in every interlocutory skirmish. The burden lies on the applicant, and courts are astute to prevent the provision from becoming an instrument for judge-shopping or for delaying trials that are not going a party’s way.
What persuades
Objective, verifiable circumstances: recorded orders reflecting prejudgment of the actual issues, a demonstrated personal interest or connection, connected matters pending elsewhere, or genuine hardship to parties and witnesses.
What does not
Oral observations in court, adverse interim orders that are appealable in the ordinary course, rulings against a party on procedure, or friction between counsel and the bench during argument.
What it costs
An unfounded petition invites dismissal with costs — here Rs. 25,000 — and the case returns to the same court, with the allegation of bias now part of the record.
Where transfer applications are made
| Situation | Provision | Forum |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer between courts within one state | Section 24, CPC | High Court, or the District Court for courts subordinate to it |
| Transfer between courts in different states | Section 25, CPC | Supreme Court of India |
| Transfer of criminal cases within a sessions division or state | Sections 447 and 446, BNSS 2023 | Sessions Court or High Court respectively, corresponding to Sections 408 and 407 CrPC |
Recusal is not the applicant’s to demand either
Transfer petitions of this kind are sometimes framed, in substance, as requests that a particular judge stop hearing the case. It is worth keeping the two ideas distinct. Recusal is a matter for the conscience of the judge, informed by settled principles about interest and apprehension of bias; a party cannot compel it by expressing displeasure, and a transfer petition is not an appellate route to the same end. Where a genuine ground exists, it will usually be visible in the record itself — and where it is not, the petition tends to say more about the state of the litigation than the state of the court.
A note on commercial suits
The suit in question was a commercial suit, and the order is a reminder that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regime — with its compressed timelines for written statements, case management hearings and summary judgment — leaves little room for satellite litigation. A transfer petition suspends nothing by itself; the suit continues unless a stay is obtained, and the commercial timelines continue to run.
A litigant who genuinely believes a court is prejudiced has remedies, but the path runs through material, not impressions: certified copies of the orders said to reflect prejudgment, transcripts or applications on record, and a candid assessment of whether an appellate court would see bias or merely robust case management. Where that material does not exist, the sounder course is almost always to contest the suit on its merits and reserve grievances for appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can seek transfer of a civil case within Delhi?
Under Section 24 CPC the High Court or a District Court may, on the application of a party or of its own motion, transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before a court subordinate to it. For transfers between courts within Delhi, the petition is ordinarily moved before the Delhi High Court, supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds.
What grounds usually justify a transfer?
Recognised grounds include a reasonable apprehension of denial of a fair trial supported by objective material, common questions in connected matters pending before different courts, balance of convenience of parties and witnesses, and jurisdictional appropriateness. A generalised sense of grievance, or displeasure at interim outcomes, is not a ground.
Can remarks made by a judge during a hearing establish bias?
The order of 10 August 2026 holds that they cannot, by themselves. A judicial proceeding necessarily involves exchanges between the court and counsel, and observations made in that course are not determinations of the issues. Absent an adverse adjudication on substantive rights or other objective material, such remarks do not found a transfer.
What is the risk of filing a weak transfer petition?
Costs, and the forfeiture of goodwill. In this case the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000. A transfer petition also places on record an allegation against a judge who will ordinarily continue to hear the matter, so the decision to file one calls for a careful, objective appraisal of the material.