Civil Revision No.4367 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4367 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Pawan Kumar and another .......Petitioners Versus Harpal Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.CLSharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.ND Achint, Advocate <><><> AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the case, titled as “Pawan Kumar and another v. Harpal Singh and others” from Samrala to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana, having been dismissed by the District Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 28.5.2010, they have approached this Court by filing revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff-petitioners that there is danger to Civil Revision No.4367 of 2010 2 their lives at Samrala as the defendant-respondents were pressurizing them to withdraw the suit and were threatening with dire consequences, in case they visited Samrala to pursue the case. 4. The only ground for transfer of the case was relating to apprehension of danger in the mind of the petitioners that the defendants had been pressurizing or extending threats, which was not substantiated. If there was any threat or pressure, the plaintiff-petitioners could seek protection from the police or approach any other appropriate authority, for redressal of their grievances. The observations recorded by the learned District Judge are as under: “It has been fairly conceded that there is no allegations against the Presiding Officer. If there is danger to lives of the applicants, they can very well approach the police in this regard for safety and even they can move such application before the trial Court if there is any danger. When there is no allegation against the trial Court of favouritism, there is no ground to transfer the case from court at Samrala to some other court at Ludhiana as transfer of the case to Ludhiana will cause inconvenience to the respondents.” 5. Finding no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the revision petition is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) September 22, 2011 JUDGE SRM