Civil Revision No.6923 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6923 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 12-01-2010 Rajesh Singh and another .... Petitioners VERSUS Smt. Hardev Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 7.11.2009 passed by the District Judge, Kaithal dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for transfer of the appeal as well as cross-objections pending in the court of Sh. Naresh Katyal, Additional District Judge, Kaithal apprehending injustice. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that hearing of the arguments in the appeal as well as in the cross-objections started on 27.10.2009 at 11.15 a.m. before the learned court below. However, before the petitioners could conclude their arguments, abruptedly before lunch the hearing was closed and the case was put up for orders on November 4, 2009. Thereafter, the petitioners even moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence on 30.10.2009. In that application though notice was not issued to the opposite party but still the reply was filed and the same was also put up for consideration along with main appeal on November 4, 2009. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners filed an application before the learned Distt. Judge for withdrawal of the appeal and the cross-objectioins from the court of Sh. Naresh Katyal, Additional District Judge, Kaithal and transfer it to some other court as the circumstances suggested that the court was biased in its approach. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The facts stated above are not borne out from the judicial record. Though it is claimed that on October 27, 2009, after the arguments were heard, the case was put up for orders on November 04, 2009, however the record Civil Revision No.6923 of 2009 -2- shows that the arguments were shown to be partly heard and the case was adjourned to November 04, 2009 for further arguments. Even in the application for additional evidence filed by the petitioners, notice had been issued to the opposite party. Meaning thereby to submit that without issuing notice the opposite party filed reply is also incorrect. Even the action of the petitioners for filing application for leading additional evidence after October 27, 2009, when it is sought to be claimed that after completion of the arguments, the case was put up for orders clearly shows that the petitioners in the present case knew that the arguments in the case had not yet concluded. Affidavit filed by the counsel in the present case also cannot be relied upon as such considering the fact that he is a party to the litigation. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any case of bias approach of the learned court below has been made out in the present case to justify the withdrawal of the appeal and transfer it to some other court. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 12.01.2010 JUDGE manju