A judicial transfer based on incorrect facts must be set aside to preserve public confidence.

The petitioner had obtained an eviction decree against the respondent on 22 December 2023.

The respondent challenged that decree in Civil Regular Appeal No. 11-A/2024, pending before the 5th District Judge, Ratlam.

In a separate eviction matter concerning other premises, the petitioner’s brother, Girijashankar, had obtained a decree against the respondent.

The respondent’s appeal in that matter, Civil Regular Appeal No. 115/2025, was decided by the 7th Additional District Judge, Ratlam on 23 April 2026, allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree.

Thereafter, by an administrative order dated 5 May 2026, the Principal District Judge transferred Civil Regular Appeal No. 11-A/2024 from the 5th District Judge to the 7th Additional District Judge on the ground that an identical appeal was pending before the latter Court.

The petitioner contended that the purportedly identical appeal had already been decided before the transfer order and sought transfer of the appeal back under Section 24 CPC.

The application was dismissed on 8 July 2026, leading to the present revision under Section 115 CPC.

Whether the Principal District Judge erred in refusing to transfer Civil Regular Appeal No. 11-A/2024 back to the 5th District Judge when the stated basis for its administrative transfer—the pendency of an identical appeal before the 7th Additional District Judge—was factually incorrect.

Whether continuation of the appeal before the 7th Additional District Judge, after the earlier related appeal had already been decided by that Court, created a reasonable apprehension affecting the perception of fairness and warranted transfer under Section 24 CPC.

The Court applied Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction over subordinate-court orders, and Section 24 CPC, which empowers the competent court to transfer or withdraw suits, appeals, or other proceedings in the interests of justice.

The Court further applied the principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done; public confidence in the judicial process requires both actual impartiality and the absence of a reasonable perception of bias or unfairness.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The administrative transfer order dated 5 May 2026 was expressly based on the supposed pendency of an identical appeal before the 7th Additional District Judge. However, Civil Regular Appeal No. 115/2025 had already been decided by that Court on 23 April 2026. Consequently, the factual premise for transferring Civil Regular Appeal No. 11-A/2024 did not exist when the transfer order was passed.

Although the respondent characterized the transfer as a routine administrative measure arising from similarity of issues, the Court held that the incorrect factual basis of the order created a reasonable suspicion in the petitioner’s mind.

Applying the principle that the administration of justice must also carry an appearance of fairness, the Court concluded that the Principal District Judge’s refusal to grant transfer under Section 24 CPC could not be sustained.

The order dated 8 July 2026 dismissing the petitioner’s Section 24 CPC application was set aside.

The application was allowed, and Civil Regular Appeal No. 11-A/2024, Smt. Asha Rathore v. Smt. Saraswati Sharma, was transferred back to the Court of the 5th District Judge, Ratlam, for decision in accordance with law.

A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Principal District Judge, Ratlam.