T.A.No.38 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No. 38 of 2011 Date of decision 3.3.2011 Surjit Singh ...Applicant versus Charan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Atul Jain,Advocate for the applicants Mr.K.S.Dhillon,Advocate for the respondent JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (Oral) The applicant Surjit Singh has filed this application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the suit of specific performance bearing No. 158/26.7.2007 T.No.6/12.1.2009 titled as “Surjit Singh v. Charan Singh” pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Phagwara to the Courts of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. In the present case, the grouse of the applicant is that he is facing a great hardship and difficulty in pursuing the case at Phagwara as the witnesses in this case belong to Sultanpur Lodhi and they are hesitating to appear as such in court due to wastage of time, money and on account of some apprehension regarding his life and liberty. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the litigation between the parties was going on at T.A.No.38 of 2011 2 Sultanpur Lodhi. The cases were transferred from that court to the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division)Phagwara. Applicant seeks retransfer of the above-titled suit to the court of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala on the ground that the witnesses in the case are hesitant to appear in the court at Phagwara due to the threats from the respondent. In the absence of any material on record,there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent is threatening the witnesses. Moreover, applicant has the apprehension that in case the witnesses refuse to go to Phagwara for giving their evidence, he will not be able to prove his case. Cases are decided on the basis of evidence adduced in the courts keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Mere apprehension is not sufficient to transfer the case from one court to another. A transfer should not readily be granted for any fancied notion of the litigant. A litigant should repose faith and confidence in the administration of justice. The apprehension of the applicant being baseless, deserves to be rejected. Hence, his prayer for transfer of the suit titled above is declined. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 3.3.2011 JUDGE MS