Civil Revision No. 5540 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5540 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011 Natinder Kumar @ Narinder Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Sukhwant Kaur ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Natinder Kumar @ Narinder Kumar, petitioner brought this petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the petition of the petitioner for transferring appeal titled as “Sukhwant Kaur v. Natinder Kumar” from the court of Shri M.S. Randhawa, learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur has been declined. The petitioner in his application for transfer of the appeal from the court of Shri M.S. Randhawa, learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur had claimed that instead of hearing arguments in the appeal, learned Additional District Judge insisted on hearing arguments on the stay application. According to him, the respondent had openly told outside the court that she has got the stay from the Court and Civil Revision No. 5540 of 2011 --2-- would also get relief in the appeal. For this fact, the petitioner has claimed in the application that there is a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he would not get justice from the court concerned. Hence the prayer has been made. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned District Judge, Ferozepur dismissed the application vide order dated 02.09.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that the utterance of the other side outside of the court was sufficient to create apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he would not get justice from the court of Shri M.S. Randhawa, learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. He has further submitted that the case would have to be transferred if there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice from the court in which his matter is pending. In this regard, he drew my attention to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 821 where his submission finds support. The key word used in the decision in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others' (supra) is reasonable apprehension. It is not apprehension of any Civil Revision No. 5540 of 2011 --3-- suspicious mind who entertained suspicions about impartiality of the court without any reason. By telling the parties that instead of hearing the appeal finally he would decide the stay application first, learned court had not misconducted itself in any manner that would give ground to a reasonable mind to apprehend that the court would not do justice to him. The mere fact that the respondent had boasted of getting the stay from the court and that she would get the final relief in the appeal does not reflect that this confidence is on account of some understanding between the respondent and the court. A person may be confident about the merits of his case and on the strength of the same can say positively that he would win the case. Therefore, the apprehension voiced in this case cannot be said to be reasonable apprehension on which a case could be transferred. Learned District Judge, Ferozepur has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspects and has rightly found no justifiable ground for transferring the appeal from the court of Shri M.S. Randhawa, learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur to some other court and dismissed the application. In these circumstances, I find no fault with the order of learned District Judge, Ferozepur and consequently, find no ground to interfere with the same. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh