Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 19th, 2011 Udmi Ram .... Petitioner Versus Ramotar Singh Khairwal and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Udmi Ram, defendant No.1, has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.9.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by learned District Judge, Narnaul, vide which the civil suit brought by respondent no.1 against the petitioner and proforma respondents, has been transferred from the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul to Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh, as also the order dated 27.9.2011 (Annexure P7) passed by learned District Judge, Narnaul, vide which the application of the petitioner praying for transferring the case to some other court in Narnaul instead of the court at Mohindergarh, Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2011 2 .. has been dismissed. For the purpose of deciding the revision petition, there is no need to refer to the controversy involved in the suit between the parties thereto. Suffice it to say that the suit was originally pending in the court of Sh. R.K.Yadav, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh and a reference was made by the said court to learned District Judge, Narnaul for transfer of the said case. During hearing of that reference on 3.1.2011, both the parties prayed for transfer of the suit to some court at Narnaul and for that reason, the case was transferred from the court of Sh. R.K. Yadav, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh to the court of Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul vide order of the said date. When the case was pending in the court of Shri Chander Hass, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul, the plaintiff, who happens to be an Advocate practising at Mohindergarh, filed an application for transfer of the case from his court. Learned District Judge, Narnaul noticed the facts that the suit pertains to Sub Division of Mohindergarh and that earlier it was pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh as also the circumstances in which the suit reached the court of Shri Chander Hass, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul, vide order dated 26.9.2011. It has also been noticed that a reference having been made by Shri Chander Hass for withdrawal of the suit from Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2011 3 .. his court and sending the same to some other court for its disposal. In these circumstances, learned District Judge did not even feel like making reference to the allegations in the transfer application and in view of the reference made by Shri Chander Hass, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul, he transferred the case to the court of Ms. Saurab Kuhar, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh for its disposal, in accordance with law. Udmi Ram, defendant No.1 then filed an application praying for transfer of the case to some court at Narnaul instead of the court at Mohindergarh. The said application was opposed and for the fact that the case related to Mohindergarh and that it had been rightly sent to a court there, the application was dismissed vide order dated 27.9.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, defendant No.1 has brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 3.1.2011, vide which the case was transferred from the court of Shri R.K.Yadav, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul to the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh has become final and the District Judge, Narnaul had no authority to review the said order. According to him, Shri Chander Hass, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2011 4 .. Narnaul had visited the spot after partly hearing the arguments in this case and had prepared a status report (Annexure P4). According to him, the petitioner had no objection in transferring of the case from his court, but only desired that case be transferred to some other court at Narnaul instead of transferring it to a court at Mohindergarh, where the plaintiff is a practicing Advocate. Though, it is not specifically voiced, there appears apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the plaintiff may influence the decision making process of the Judge at Mohindergarh and that the petitioner may not be able to get justice there. This apprehension, if it is there, is totally unfounded because not even a word has been said any where about any activity of the plaintiff which may give rise to such apprehension. The territorial jurisdiction over the property in dispute is with the courts at Mohindergarh. The order dated 3.1.2011 cannot be said to have become final. Learned District Judge is not precluded from making transfer order inspite of his earlier order dated 3.1.2011. In these circumstances, when transfer order has been made on a reference of the court, the discretion exercised by learned District Judge, Narnaul in transferring the case to a court at Mohindergarh, cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. The petitioner would always have a right to file another application for transfer, if at all he noticed some facts, which may give ground to his apprehension of not being able to get justice from the court at Mohindergarh. Civil Revision No. 6383 of 2011 5 .. For these reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 19th, 2011 som