C.R. No.1522 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1522 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.3.2008 Ved Parkash and sons and others .....Petitioners Vs. Bhim Sen Bansal and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioners pray that the order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, rejecting their prayer for transfer of the case be set aside and a direction be issued transferring the case to another Court. The prayer for transfer of the case is primarily based upon an allegation that one of the petitioners, namely Shiv Kumar Puri was present in Court on 17.1.2008 and saw one of the respondents Arjun Dass, emerging from the chamber of the Presiding Officer. Shiv Kumar Puri wished the respondent Arjun Dass, who was surprised and stunnned and left the Court premises immediately. The other ground pressed into service is that the petitioners' application for production of documents was fixed for pronouncement on 17.1.2008. However, orders were not pronounced but eventually when the order was released, it bears the date of 17.1.2008. This fact is allegedly supported by affidavits of two counsel Sh.Rupesh Kumar and Sh.Harsh Tandon. C.R. No.1522 of 2008 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order, as also the averments made in the petition. The primary ground for transfer, namely; that one of the petitioners saw respondent Arjun Dass, emerging from the chamber of the Presiding Officer has been emphatically denied by the said respondent, as also by the Presiding Officer. It appears that the petitioners, who are tenants have manufactured these allegations, so as to overawe and browbeat the Presiding Officer. Such attempts should not only be discouraged but deprecated. The affidavits filed by the counsel, which do not relate to the aforementioned fact but to the alleged pronouncement of an order dated 17.1.2008 are entirely irrelevant. It would be appropriate to advise counsel to desist from filing such affidavits and/or identifying with litigants in personal causes. Another contention that as the Presiding Officer has prayed that he has no objection if the case is transferred from his board, cannot be accepted, as it would reward an unscrupulous litigant and ensure the success of his devious designs. To retain the case or recuse therefrom is left to the discretion of the learned Rent Controller. The endeavour of Courts to ensure the purity of the administration of justice, does not absolve litigants of their duty to be fair and just before a Court. As the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law and the facts pleaded in the present petition do not warrant the transfer of the case from the Court of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, the present petition is dismissed. 13.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE