IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 Date of decision: March 26, 2009 Atma Singh and Others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009 This application has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking restoration of the main Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 which has been dismissed vide order dated 8.12.2008, as despite the case having been taken up twice, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Besides, the report made by the Registry showed that the learned counsel for the petitioners had not filed process fee so notice could not be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the case was taken up before a Bench of this Court, he was appearing before another Bench. Due to non-appearance, the present petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is submitted that the learned counsel for petitioners also made a request before the Court, however, since the order had already been passed, it was observed that only remedy was to file an application for recalling the order. The application seeking restoration is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons stated in the Crl. Misc. application, there are sufficient grounds to restore the main petition. Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 is restored to its original number. Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners seek transfer of the case from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur to the court of competent jurisdiction in any other city in Punjab. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that evidence in the case has already been led and two witnesses have been examined. In the circumstances, the transfer of the case at this stage is not warranted. Learned counsel submits that he had raised a contention regarding jurisdiction of the Court at Ferozepur for the purpose of seeking transfer. However, it is stated that he would raise the contention before the trial Court itself at an appropriate stage. It may also be noticed that Rupinder Kuar (respondent No.2) had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was filed in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tarn Taran exercising the powers of District Judge under the Hindu Marriage Act. By an order dated 12.10.2007 (Annexure P3), this Court transferred the proceedings pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tarn Taran to the Court of learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Therefore, in the circumstances, no ground is made out for transfer of the case from the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the court of competent jurisdiction in any other city in Punjab. Accordingly, Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 is dismissed. Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exemption may be granted to petitioners No.2 and 3 from personal appearance. In this regard it would be proper if the said petitioners move an application before the learned trial Court itself. In case such an application is moved, the learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 26, 2009 amit