Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has taken note of an unusual controversy arising from a nearly 30-year-old civil suit in Gonda, after allegations surfaced that the Divisional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Durga Shakti Nagpal, contacted the trial judge regarding the case.
While the transfer plea itself became infructuous after the suit was moved to another court, Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held that the allegations of pressure on the judicial officer could not simply be ignored. The Court has therefore directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate bench dealing with criminal contempt.
Background Of The Case
The applicant, Jyoti Vidya Mandir, Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar, through its Manager Dayanand Mishra, runs a school on land it claims to occupy, while Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda, says the land is nazul property meant for its own use.
The dispute is being fought in Suit No. 721 of 1997, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC Naveen/ACJM, Gonda, with issues framed in 2018 and the case now at the evidence stage under a standing status-quo order. The applicant moved this transfer plea under Section 24 CPC, alleging the opposite side was pressuring the court, and sought to shift the suit out of the Devi Patan division.
The Judge's Letter
During the hearing, senior counsel produced a letter dated 4 August 2026, written by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, to the District Judge, describing repeated calls she received while on leave - one from a number linked to the Commissioner's office, and later, she says, from Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal herself, who wanted to discuss the pending suit and asked pointed questions about how long she intended to stay on leave. The judge said the calls, and the tone used, amounted to interference and asked that the case be moved out of her court.
The Commissioner's Response
Nagpal, in her own letter to the Administrative Judge, Gonda, dated the same day, gave a different account - she said she called only to check on the judge's leave status since the case, pending nearly 30 years and involving land needed for her office building, required expediting, and that the judge reacted with anger and later declared in open court that she would not hear the matter further.
Court's Observations
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi noted that the District Judge, Gonda, had already transferred the suit to another equivalent court on 9 August 2026, so the transfer plea had lost its purpose. The Additional Advocate General, arguing the plea was now infructuous, did not dispute that the Commissioner had made the call. The Court held that the tone of the alleged conversation showed the judge was being pressured, and that courts cannot look away at insulting language used against a Presiding Officer. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey (1996) 6 SCC 510, the Bench observed:
"Any threat of filing a complaint against the Judge in respect of the judicial proceedings conducted by him in his own court is a positive attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice."
Decision
The transfer application was consigned to record as infructuous, with liberty given to the applicant to move a fresh application before the District Judge, Gonda.
The Court directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate contempt bench after seeking directions from the Chief Justice or the Senior Judge.
Case Details
Case Title: Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar Thru Manager Dayanand Mishra vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda Through Its President and Others
Case Number: Transfer Application (Civil) No. 165 of 2026
Judge: Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
Decision Date: August 21, 2026
