Civil Revision No.5377 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5377 of 2011 Date of Decision:05.09.2011 Attar Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Murti Mandir Sita Ram Ji Maharaj .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, the civil suit filed by Murti Mandir Sita Ram Ji Maharaj-respondent-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) against Attar Singh and others-petitioner-appellant defendants(for short “the defendants”) for a decree of possession of the land in dispute, was decreed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008. 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal, which is pending before the Additional District Judge, Narnaul. They moved an application dated 06.06.2011(Annexure P-1) for transfer of the appeal, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Narnaul, by means of impugned order dated 29.07.2011(Annexure P-2), which in substance is as under:- “The dispute between the parties is regarding some land owned by respondent Murti Mandir Sita Ram Ji. The appeal is pending in the Court of Sh.Rajneesh Bansal, learned Addl.District Judge, Narnaul. He is also a trained mediator appointed by the Hon'ble High Court. He had tried to bring the parties to compromise by taking the dispute in the Mediation Centre. Apprehending that the learned ADJ was interested in respondent, Civil Revision No.5377 of 2011 2 present application for transfer of the case has been moved alleging that the learned ADJ has tried to exert pressure on the applicants during the process of compromise as mediator. It is the duty of the mediator to suggest ways and means to bring the parties to compromise when he acts as a mediator in Mediation Centre. When the parties did not come to the compromise, the dispute is disposed of on merits. It does not mean that the steps taken by the mediator in the Mediation Centre affect in any way the outcome of the dispute when the same is taken up by the learned ADJ in his court for disposal on merits. If the present application is accepted then other parties would be approaching this Court for transfer of the case alleging that the mediator was biased against it. Hence finding no merit therein I hereby dismiss this transfer application.” 3. The petitioners(defendants) did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this respect. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the appellate court is putting pressure to compromise the matter and the petitioners do not expect justice, so, the District Judge committed a legal mistake in not transferring the appeal, sans merit. 6. As is evident that the District Judge has recorded the valid reasons in the impugned order in this relevant context. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any material, much less cogent, to transfer the appeal. The appellate court has suggested the ways & means to bring the parties to compromise as a mediator, which is the legal requirement. If the cases are transferred on such frivolous grounds, which are not at all substantiated by any material, then there will be no end of anything and unscrupulous litigants would delay the disposal of the appeals in this relevant connection. To me, since, the District Judge has rightly Civil Revision No.5377 of 2011 3 dismissed the transfer application of the petitioners, so, no ground for interference in the impugned order, is made out in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. September 05, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE