TA No.284of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.284 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 07.07.2011 Avtar Singh Falora .....Applicant Versus Prem Parkash ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. CM No.15985-CII of 2011 The application is allowed as prayed for and the reply on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record. Main Case The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of civil appeal titled as 'Avtar Singh Falora and another vs. Prem Parkash' filed under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, from the Court of learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only ground on which the transfer has been sought is that the respondent is a practicing lawyer at District Courts, Hoshiarpur. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed a reply and has pointed out TA No.284of 2011 (O&M) 2 that the daughter-in-law of the applicant is also a practicing lawyer for more than 13 years, whereas the respondent is a young lawyer. Being a lawyer is not disqualification and the case cannot be transferred solely on the ground that the respondent is a practicing lawyer. No other point has been raised. In DAV College, Hoshiarpur Society (Regd.) vs. D.M. Sharma and others 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) page 71, it has been held that merely because a litigant is a practicing Advocate would not constitute a valid ground for transfer of the case. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 07.07.2011 JUDGE Jyoti 1 Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? No