T.A. No. 147 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. T.A. No. 147 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 31, 2009 Smt. Om Lata Kalyan and others …..Petitioners Vs. Renuka …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Respondent had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as a consequential relief against the petitioners challenging the validity of the Will dated March 26, 2008 alleged to have been executed by Nabheet Kalyan, deceased husband of plaintiff- respondent. Defendant- petitioner No.1 is mother-in-law, defendant- petitioner No.2 is minor T.A. No. 147 of 2009 [2] daughter and defendant- petitioner No.3 is the son of plaintiff- respondent. The said suit was filed on June 2, 2008 but was sent to permanent Lok Adalat on June 11, 2008. The Presiding Officer of permanent Lok Adalat on September 18, 2008 again referred the case back to the Civil Court for September 19, 2008, observing that the trial Court had not appointed the Guardian of minor defendant- petitioner No.2 Ananya under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC and that the minor had been sued through her grand-mother Om Lata Kalyan. The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on September 19, 2008. On September 19, 2008, statement of plaintiff- respondent was recorded and case was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with the following orders passed by Ms.Ritu Y.K. Behl, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal:- “File received from the Permanent Lok Adalat. Fresh power of attorney on behalf of defendant No.1- Om Lata Kalyan has been filed, who is also representing the minor defendant No.2- Ananya. Plaintiff has made a detailed statement relinquishing her claim in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and has withdrawn the present suit. Her statement to this effect has been separately recorded. In view of the same, the present suit is dismissed as withdrawn.” The plaintiff- respondent filed an application for restoration of the suit which was earlier dismissed as withdrawn. Copy of the same is attached with the petition as annexure P-5. Notice of the said application T.A. No. 147 of 2009 [3] was issued to the petitioners on February 2, 2009 for April 6, 2009. The petitioners had put in appearance on April 6, 2009 in the application for restoration of the subject and sought time to file reply, as such the matter was adjourned to April 10,2 009 and thereafter to April 18, 2009 and then to April 22, 2009. On April 22, 2009, it was brought to the notice of the trial Court that this petition seeking transfer of the case from that Court had been filed in the High Court and was likely to be heard within two or three days but the Court below adjourned the case for April 30,2 009 on payment of Rs.500/- as costs. The intention of the Court to expeditiously dispose of the application for restoration has been construed as haste and hurry apprehending that the petitioners will not get justice. One of the other reasons for said apprehension is that the father of the respondent is an Advocate and that he has been proclaiming that restoration of suit in terms of application for restoration is a foregone conclusion. Counsel for the petitioners has informed during the course of arguments that at present, the application for restoration of the case filed by the plaintiff- respondent on merits is pending not in the Court of Ms.Ritu Y.K. Behl, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal but is fixed before another Judge as the said officer was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, and the matter has gone to another Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). In the present case a prayer has been made for the transfer of the restoration application which is pending in the Court of Sh.P.R. Sharma, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, to a Court of competent jurisdiction situated out of Karnal or Haryana. T.A. No. 147 of 2009 [4] After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the suit had been withdrawn in the Court of Ms.Ritu Y.K.Behl, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal and at present the restoration application is pending in the Court of Sh.P.R. Sharma. The judicial propriety demands that the application for restoration be decided by the same Judge who had dismissed the suit earlier as withdrawn. In view of the above circumstances, the request of the petitioners for transfer of the case is allowed only to the extent that the restoration application will be taken up by Ms.Ritu Y.K. Behl, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, as the said Presiding Officer had passed the order of dismissal of the case as withdrawn on the basis of alleged compromise. In case the suit is restored for adjudication on merits, the same Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal will take up the further proceedings. In view of this order, the counsel for the petitioners has sought permission to withdraw this application for transfer at this stage reserving the rights to seek the transfer of the case, in case the circumstances so warrant. Petition is dismissed. While dismissing the petition, it is observed that transfer of this case to the Court of Ms.Ritu Y.K. Behl has been ordered in the interest of propriety and it should not be deemed to be an expression of opinion regarding the correctness of the allegations levelled by the petitioners. No opinion has been made regarding the allegations against the Advocate and the same should not be deemed to have been affirmed by this Court, for any T.A. No. 147 of 2009 [5] purpose. Parties are directed to appear before the Court of Ms. Ritu Y.K.Behl, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, on October 3, 2009. August 31, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE