T.A.No. 172 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No.172 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.9.2011 Naresh Kumari Applicant v. Bhale Ram and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.R.K.Bamal,Advocate for Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate for the applicant Mr.Nitin Jain,Advocate for respondents .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral) This application has been filed by the applicant under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the Civil Suit bearing No. 134-C dated dated 31.7.2006, titled “Naresh Kumari v. Bhale Ram and Others” pending adjudication in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hansi, to any other courts of competent jurisdiction in the State of Haryana. Applicant/plaintiff filed the above-said suit for declaration claiming 1/5th share in the ancestral Coparcenary Property measuring 149, Kanal 15 Marlas situated in village Sisai Kali Rawan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar, against her parents and married and unmarried sister(s). One of the main grounds taken up in the appeal by the learned counsel for the applicant is Randhir Singh Malik, Ex-President of Hansi Bar Association, is a practicing lawyer at Civil Court, Hansi and being a member of the Bar, he is having influence over the Presiding T.A.No. 172 of 2010 2 Officer i.e. Shri Gagandeep Mittal, Civil Judge. Further, the said Randhir Singh Malik is instigating other members of the Bar to not to defend the case of the applicant at Hansi. The apprehension of the applicant is that she will not get justice from the trial court as the relatives and friends of Randhir Singh Malik are the members of the Bar and none is consenting to appear on her behalf. As and when the case is called up for hearing, a large number of Advocates/supporters of Randhir Singh Malik surround the court room and she has to face the anger and wrath of these Advocates/supporters. On these premises, the applicant sought transfer of the aforesaid civil suit pending in the Court of Sh. Gagandeep Mittal, Civil Judge, Junior Division to any other competent court in the State of Haryana. Reply on behalf of the respondents filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the documents placed on record shows that the suit was filed by the applicant against her parents and sisters, claiming share in the ancestral coparcenary property. The suit was filed on 31.7.2006. The evidence was concluded on 25.7.2009. On 10.4.2010, the suit was fixed for argument, the amendment in the plaint was sought. Her husband, Sh. R.K.Bamal, Advocate appeared on that date. A perusal of zimni orders, Annexures R-1 to R-52 show that Sh. R.K.Bamal, Advocate represented the applicant in the trial court. Sh. P.K.Pannu, Advocate contested the suit till evidence stage. No other counsel appeared for the plaintiff. Sh. Randhir Singh Malik is the brother-in-law of the applicant (her sister's husband). Shri Gagandeep Mittal, Civil Judge has already been transferred and other Presiding Officer has taken over the charge. There T.A.No. 172 of 2010 3 seems to be nothing unusual in conducting the trial of the suit, as alleged by the applicant. In view of the above discussion, the version rendered by the applicant for seeking transfer of her above-said suit does not seems to be convincing. One of relative of the party to the lis is an Advocate, which can not taken to be a ground for transfer the suit. Moreover, the husband of the applicant is also an Advocate and representing her in the trial court as well as in this application. In DAV College, Hoshiarpur Society (Regd.) v. D.M. Sharma and Others, 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 71, it was held that merely because a litigant is practicing Advocate would not constitute a valid ground for transfer of a case. The suit is at the fag end and is likely to be concluded. The application appears to have been filed to prolong the trial by taking malicious and vexatious grounds. The applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and thus is not entitled to any relief. The sanctity of administration of justice is required to be maintained particularly by the members of the Bar and they are not expected to weaken the pious and novel system of justice. What has been said above will not affect the merits of the case, this transfer application is dismissed. However, it is expected that the Ld. Trial court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months, keeping in view that the parties to the lis, in this case, are closely related to each other. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 6.9.2011 MS