IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 23958-CII of 2011 in/and TA No. 448 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.9.2011 Sunil Kumar Wadhwa and another ....Applicants Versus Sanjay Singh Morya ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Anil Shukla, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.RM Singh, Advocate for the respondent ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) CM No. 23958 -CII of 2011 Application for placing on record the order dated 12.9.2011 as Annexure P-3, is allowed as prayed for. Application stands disposed of accordingly. TA No. 448 of 2011 The present application has been preferred by the applicants, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the Civil Appeal No.70/16.4.2011/8.10.2010 titled as 'Sanjay Singh Morya vs. Sunil Kumar Wadhwa and another' filed by the respondent, from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurgaon, Faridabad or Palwal. In the present case, the grouse of the applicants is that the CM No. 23958-CII of 2011 in/and TA No. 448 of 2011 (O&M) -2- respondent is a practicing Advocate at Faridabad; he is an influential person and manipulates to linger on the case in question. Further the learned counsel submits that no Advocate at Kurukshetra or from the vicinity is willing to defend the case of the applicants. The applicants also apprehend that the respondent may involve them in some other criminal case by filing false and frivolous complaints. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In DAV College Hoshiarpur vs. DM Sharma and others 2005(1) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 71, it has been held that merely because litigant is a practising advocate would not constitute a valid ground for transfer of the case. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that the respondent is having influence and he can easily get registered a false case against the applicants. Being a lawyer is not a disqualification or ground for transfer of the petition, unless it is established that such a lawyer is trying to influence the Court or is in-fact in position to influence the Court. A transfer should not readily be granted for any fancied notion of a litigant. The yardstick is in the interest of justice. The applicants should repose confidence in judicial process. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the respondent may affect the case on the judicial side, being an influential person. The apprehension of the applicants is baseless and deserves to be rejected. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed. 29.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE