Civil Revision No. 7286 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7286 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 28th, 2011 Baljinder Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus Brijnandan Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta , Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Baljinder Singh and another, the petitioners, who had been impleaded as Legal Representatives of S. Gurdev Singh, the plaintiff of the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.6.1996, have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which their application for transfer of the suit from the court of Ms. Girish, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, has been dismissed. The civil suit titled Gurdev Singh through L.Rs. Vs. Rajinder Kaur has been pending in the court of Ms. Girish, Additional Civil Judge Civil Revision No. 7286 of 2011 2 .. (Senior Division), Jagraon. Claiming that defendants No. 2 and 3 are openly claiming that they are having talks with the Presiding Officer and that she will dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs without going into the merits of the case and that the court would not even grant the alternative relief in the shape of money decree, prayer is made for transfer of the suit from her court to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The application is opposed by the defendants. According to them, the application has been filed after conclusion of the arguments. According to them, counsel for the plaintiff had sought an adjournment to rebut the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants. After availing two or three opportunities in this manner, the present application has been filed, which is claimed to be abuse of the process of court. It is denied that the defendants have ever claimed having talks with the court as alleged. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned District Judge, Ludhiana dismissed the application. I have heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned District Judge did not consider the plea taken by the petitioners in their application and has rather dismissed the same for some different reasons. According to him, the reason for dismissing the application with learned District Judge Ludhiana is that “no motive can be ascribed to the Presiding Officer to favour a party at the risk of her career, who is expected to render justice to all and sundry and the aggrieved party has a right to challenge the judgment/order”. According to him, learned Civil Revision No. 7286 of 2011 3 .. District Judge has rather given a sermon to the petitioners to have faith in the Judicial Officer to strengthen the judicial system. He has submitted that even after dismissal of the application, as is mentioned in para No. 10 of the revision petition, the court has remarked that the petitioners have tried their best to get the case transferred from her court and that she would now see what is to be done in their case. As mentioned by learned District Judge, Ludhiana, it will not be completely out of place to say that a Judicial Officer cannot be expected to decide a suit without going into the merits of the case. By doing so, the Judicial Officer would certainly risk her future in the job. However, this may not be a complete answer to the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners, who claim that defendants No. 2 and 3 are openly claiming about having talks with the Presiding Officer and that she would dismiss the suit without going on the merits of the case and would not even grant the alternative relief, do not specify as to before whom this claim had been made by defendants No. 2 and 3. For substantiating such a plea, the petitioners were to mention the name of the person before whom this claim was made by them and then were required to further support this averment by an affidavit of that person. Nothing such was done by the petitioners in this case. The remark of the Presiding Officer after dismissal of the transfer application is also not there in any threatening tone. The same only conveys that the court would now decide the suit. It does not convey that the suit would be decided, irrespective of merits, against the petitioners. Resultantly, I find no ground for transfer of the civil suit from the court of Ms. Girish, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon to Civil Revision No. 7286 of 2011 4 .. some other court. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 28th, 2011 som