TA No.535 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.535 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.02.2011 Jagan Nath Bansal ...Applicant Versus Prem Chand Bansal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of civil suit titled as ‘Prem Chand Bansal Vs. Jagan Nath Bansal & others’, filed by respondent No.1 from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Nirwana or Safidon, on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer was seen in the house of the in-laws of the plaintiff. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant filed the application under Section 24 of the TA No.535 of 2010 2 Code of Civil Procedure, before the learned District Judge, Jind, which was dismissed by passing a detailed order and imposing an exemplary cost of ` 10,000/-. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 29.11.2010, a communication has been received from the learned ACJ (SD), Jind. From the perusal of the report, it emerges that the case in question before the learned trial Court is one of the oldest cases and the learned Presiding Officer has made a sincere effort to decide the same. The learned District Judge has given the details of the proceedings that have taken place before the learned trial Court. In regard to the allegation that the learned Presiding Officer changed the date of hearing, no application was moved by the counsel and no other evidence was adduced like producing of diary and brief of the counsel representing the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited ‘Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others’, 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 0649. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed that when there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice from the Court in which the suit is pending; important question of laws involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; are some of the important considerations. 5. In the instant case, no such case is made out and the apprehension of the applicant emanated from the alleged allegation that TA No.535 of 2010 3 the learned Presiding Officer was seen in the company of the in-laws of the plaintiffs is not proved on record. 6. I, therefore, find no merit in the instant application and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. 28.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No