CR 3734 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR 3734 of 2011 Date of decision:1.6.2011 P.K.Aggarwal petitioner vs Ram Pal Chander & others respondent Present:- Mr. DK Gupta, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 7.5.2011 passed by the District Judge, Panchkula` dismissing the application u/s 24 CPC for transfer of counter claim ( wrongly mentioned civil suit by the petitioner in his application before the District Judge u/s 24 CPC) Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that he might not get justice on account of one of the defendant- respondents being a senior bureaucrat in Haryana Government service. The apprehension of not getting justice arises out of the following circumstances:- 1. The petitioner as a plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction, in which the defendant- respondent No.1 had sought relief of specific performance of an oral agreement of sale. The suit and the counter claim were dismissed in default by predecessor of the Presiding Officer. The counter claim was restored whereas the suit for injunction remained dismissed. 2. The defendant- respondents had been permitted to place on CR 3734 of 2011 2 record Ex. 382 to Ex. 404 in rebuttal on merely having been tendered by the defendants at the stage of final hearing of the counter claim on 9.12.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has vehemently contended that the act of the learned Presiding Officer in permitting the documents to be exhibited, which were merely tendered without examining their admissibility, relevance or mode of proof, is indicative of bias. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex court in Shalimar chemical Workds Limited vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (refineries) and others (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 423, observing that the admission of the documents in evidence has to be decided at the stage of production of the documents itself. The court having not decided the admissibility on 9.12.2010, the suit is required to be transferred. There is no dispute that the counter claim, filed by the defendant- respondents, is at final stage of hearing. The apprehension of not getting justice from the Presiding Officer arises out of the judicial orders , passed by the presiding Officer. The order of restoration of counter claim passed by the successor of the Presiding Officer admittedly had been challenged by the petitioner on judicial side but the said order stands upheld on judicial side. So far as the permission to the defendant- respondents to tender in evidence 22 documents on 9.12.2010 is concerned, a perusal of the order indicates that objections had been raised by the counsel for the petitioner ( plaintiff before the lower court) and the court has specifically observed that objections regarding the mode of proof, original having not been tendered as per law and the documents being not liable to be exhibited in rebuttal on the ground of onus being not on defendants, have been kept open to be decided at the time of final decision of the case. The ratio of the above said CR 3734 of 2011 3 judgment, cited by the counsel for the petitioner, regarding the mode of proof, admissibility and relevance of the documents is yet to be determined by the court. Order dated 9.12.2010 indicates that the objections raised by the petitioner have been kept open to be decided at the time of final adjudication of the suit. The perusal of order dated 9.12.2010 also indicats that the relevance, admissibility and the mode of proof of each document could not have been considered in context to the pleadings, the evidence and issues framed by the court on 9.12.2010. Besides this, the validity of the judicial order dated 9.12.2010 could have been tested in revision or can be tested in judicial proceedings before the court below. The bias, alleged by the petitioner, is not reflected from any conduct of the Presiding Officer, as such there is no ground for interfering in the order passed by the Distrct Judge, Panchkula dismissing the application for transfer. Disposed of. However, it is expected from the civil court that the said court would fairly adjudicate upon all the legal pleas, raised by the petitioner, unbiased by the filing of the transfer application by the plaintiff- petitioner. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to raise all the relevant pleas at an opportune time during the course of arguments before the court concerned. June 1 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE