T.A. No.331 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJBA & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No.331 of 2011 Date of decision:27.7.2011 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Versus PRESIDENT, DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, LUDHIANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ajay Gulati, Amicus Curiae. Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for Mr.Devinder Singh Saini, Mr.Gagan Saini Mr.Gurpreet Singh Saini and Mr.Harish Narang, Advocates. Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the President, Bar Association, Ludhiana. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J This Court, vide order dt.11.7.2011, acting suo-moto on the complaint/ communication dt.6.5.2011, received from the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, issued notice to the Respondents for considering as to whether the civil suit filed in the District Courts, Ludhiana, should be transferred out of Ludhiana. A brief introduction of the events running up to the suo-moto action by this Court would be necessary. The facts enunciated hereinafter are derived from the complaint received in this regard by the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. A Civil Suit titled as Mandeep Singh and others Versus President District Bar Association, Ludhiana' was filed in the court of Civil T.A. No.331 of 2011 2 Judge, (Junior Division), Ludhiana, regarding lawyer’s chambers in the precincts of the District Courts, Ludhiana. On 6.5.2011, an application was moved by Sh. Gagandeep Singh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the aforementioned pending suit. While he was coming out of the Court, Sh.Harish Narang, Advocate and Davinder Saini, Advocate, threatened him not to do so. Thereafter, while he was on the way to report the matter to the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, he was attacked by the said Advocates in front of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The matter was put up before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, who marked the same to the Administrative Judge, who in turn opined that in view of the facts disclosed in the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, the civil suit in question should be transferred out of Ludhiana, and directed that the matter should be treated as a transfer application and be put up before the appropriate bench, as per Court Roster. This is how this Court is seized of the matter. Since the matter was prima facie serious, vide order dated 3.6.2011 Sh. Ajay Gulati, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. During the course of hearing today, learned Amicus Curiae initiated the arguments by submitting that transfer of the civil suit in question solely on the basis of the facts as disclosed in the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana would set up a very wrong precedent in as much as it will not only undermine the district police administration but will seriously reflect on the judicial administration as well. The learned amicus further submitted that allowing such a transfer petition will open flood gates of litigation under the transfer jurisdiction of this Court whereby any party, by T.A. No.331 of 2011 3 threatening or assaulting the opposite party, will create a situation in which transfer of proceedings can be claimed as a matter of right by citing the present case as a precedent. Learned amicus curiae strongly pleaded that such a course of action should be avoided. Summing up his submissions, learned Amicus lastly contended that transfer of proceedings is a drastic measure and in the cases like the present one, same can be allowed only if there is no scope of a fair trial. He argued that there is not an iota of evidence to support the premise that if the suit was to be litigated in Ludhiana, the parties will not get fair trial. The facts disclosed in the Report of the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana at best discloses a law and order problem, for which the appropriate measures can be taken by the SSP, Ludhiana since the police administration is well equipped to deal with such problems. Mr C.M. Munjal, Advocate appearing for Mr.Devinder Singh Saini, Mr.Gagan Saini, Mr.Gurpreet Singh Saini and Mr.Harish Narang, Advocates contested the allegations leveled against them. He, in fact, leveled counter allegations against the complainant and submitted that in fact, the complainant was the one who beat up Ms.Kamal Jyoti, a lady Advocate. However, he admitted that the concerned SHO received cross complaints regarding the incident in question. Sh. Munjal further contended that matter has since been compromised between both the parties as reflected in Annexure A-2 and in view of the same, there is no need for the civil suit to be transferred out of Ludhiana. Sh. Munjal has placed on record the compromise referred to above along with the details of the cross complaints / FIR. In view of the submissions made by learned amicus curaie to the effect that there is insufficient basis for exercise of transfer jurisdiction in the case like the present one where there is no threat concept of Fair Trial and also T.A. No.331 of 2011 4 keeping in view the fact of compromise having been arrived at between the feuding parties, this Court is of the opinion that no further action is required in this matter. However, the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is directed to keep a strict vigil on the lawyers involved in this unsavoury incident and should take up the matter in future with the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana for ensuring maintenance of peace and security in the court premises of Judicial Court Complex, Ludhiana. In view of above, the present application is dismissed. 27.7.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE