TA No.346 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.346 of 2011 Date of decision:20.10.2011 Kulwinder Singh ...Applicant Versus Surjit Kaur and others ...Respondent(s) TA No.347 of 2011 Kulwinder Singh ...Applicant Versus Makhan Singh ...Respondent TA No.348 of 2011 Kulwinder Singh ...Applicant Versus Makhan Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.M.S.Dhami, Advocate for respondent No.1. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. This order shall dispose of three applications i.e. TA Nos. 346 to 348 of 2011 filed by Kulwinder Singh against Makhan Singh and others. The facts leading to the present applications are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction titled as TA No.346 of 2011 2 Surjit Kaur and others Vs. Kulwinder Singh and others at Balachaur. The same is with regard to agricultural land, which is situated in village ADB Paragpur, Tehsil Balachaur. The other cases i.e. Civil Suit No. 14 and 15 of 2011 were also filed by the other parties against each other concerning the land of the same village, which are also pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that as the trial Court had expressed his opinion in another case, wherein the legal positions of said case is similar to the present cases, therefore, there is every possibility that the same order will be passed in the suit in questions which will ultimately affect the decision of these cases. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the apprehension of the applicant has no substance as the applicant could not point out any significant irregularity or illegality in the order. The order of the learned trial Court is well reasoned. Moreover, the applicant also filed an application for transfer of the suit(s) in question before the District Judge, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Court vide order dated 5.9.2011 sought a report from the Collector with regard to the fact that whether the earlier Civil Suit Nos. 14 and 15 of 2011 were between the same parties and regarding the same property or not. As per the report furnished by the concerned Collector to this Court, the plaintiffs are the same but the defendants are different and the property in the civil suit is also different. In the circumstance, this Court is of the view that each case has its own facts and is to be decided by the evidence led by the parties. If the applicant is not satisfied with the decision TA No.346 of 2011 3 of the Court, he has the remedy to file an appeal. There is no circumstance, which suggests that the learned court is biased against the applicant. Mere presumption or possible apprehensions are not sufficient for a case to be transferred. A transfer should not readily be granted for any fancied notion of a litigant. The yardstick is in the interest of justice. The applicants should repose confidence in judicial process. The apprehension of the applicants is baseless and deserves to be rejected. In view of the above, the above-referred transfer applications are dismissed. 20.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks JUDGE