IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. 346 of 2009 Date of decision : December 01, 2009 Ravinder Singh ....Petitioner versus Jaspal Singh and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Avinish Mittal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Ravinder Singh has filed this transfer petition under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring Appeal No. 123 of 2008, titled “Ravinder Singh versus Jaspal Singh” from the court of Ms. Navita Singh, Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari to the court of District Judge, Yamuna Nagar or to any other appellate court there. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The aforesaid appeal was decided by Ms. Navita Singh, Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide judgment dated 10.9.2008, Annexure P/1. The petitioner preferred ESA No. 14 of 2008 against the said judgment. Vide order dated 24.8.2009, Annexure P/2, passed by this Court, the case was remanded to learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar by setting aside the judgment dated 10.9.2008, Annexure P/1. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Transfer Application No. 346 of 2009 -2- Ms. Navita Singh has already expressed her opinion vide judgment dated 10.9.2008, Annexure P/1 and therefore, it would be appropriate if the appeal is transferred to some other Judicial Officer at the same place. I have considered the contention but find no force therein. In ESA No. 14 of 2008, following contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner :- “Learned counsel for the appellant, while raising his solitary argument, submitted that the order dated 10.09.2008 has been passed on the ground of limitation and the appeal against the order dated 24.05.2008 passed by civil judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagadhri, has not been decided on merits but dismissed as being barred by limitation. It is not denied that the said appeal was dismissed only on the ground of limitation. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been noted on merits but the said question has not been adjudicated upon.” From the aforesaid observation in order dated 24.8.2009, Annexure P/2, it is apparent that the petitioner himself contended that his appeal had not been decided on merits vide judgment dated 10.9.2008, Annexure P/1 and on this contention only, the said judgment was set aside by this Court. Now the petitioner cannot take a summersault and contend that the appeal had been decided on merits as well and not on the ground of limitation alone. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the transfer petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 01, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'