T.A. No.67 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No.67 of 2009 Date of decision : 9.11.2009 Manita Randev and another ....Applicants VERSUS Shanti Devi and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate, for respondent no.2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has sought transfer of the suit filed by respondent no.1 to seek specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.11.2005 pending the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rajpura to the court of competent jurisdiction at Samrala. The only ground to seek transfer of the suit is that petitioner no.1 is widow whereas petitioner no.2 is minor son and therefore T.A. No.67 of 2009 -2- inconvenient for the petitioners to contest the suit at Rajpura. It is also contended that earlier an application for permission to sell the property of the minor was filed before the court of Samrala. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petition for permission to sell the property of the minor has since been allowed. The property in dispute is situated within the ordinary jurisdiction of Court at Rajpura. The suit is for specific performance of immoveable property. The decree, if any, passed shall be required to be executed by the court whereas immoveable property is situated. Therefore, I do not find such suit warrants transfer only for the reason that petitioner no.1 is a widow and petitioner no.2 is a minor child. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 9-11-2009 JUDGE manju