Transfer Application No.64 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No.64 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.2.2011 Sukhminder Singh ...Applicant Tarlochan Singh Virk ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Pardeep Rajput,Advocate for the petitioner. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (oral) This is an application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring Appeal No.CA 59/2010 titled Sukhminder Singh vs. Tarlochan Singh etc. u/s 96 CPC pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Amritsar to the court of the competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant, Sukhminder Singh, had engaged Tarlochachan Singh,respondent (an Advocate in District Courts,Amritsar) for filing the divorce petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the applicant and also for contesting the other cases. He further submits that the applicant paid legal fee of Rs.33,000/- by way of cheque No. 33737 dated 14.10.2006 to the respondent, which was duly encashed by the respondent. He further submits that respondent, Tarlochan Singh-Advocate filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. He also submits that when the applicant demanded copy of bail order in the complaint filed Transfer Application No.64 of 2011 2 by the wife , respondent was unable to provide the same and assured the applicant, that he would arrange some other lawyer ( his colleague) to contest his criminal case. He also submits that when the applicant demanded his money back, the respondent refused the same and threatened him by saying that he was a senior advocate and was having influence over the local police. Applicant and his father filed suit for recovery against the respondent which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.4.2010 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar. Hence, the present transfer application. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the pleadings. The averments of the learned counsel deserves to be rejected on the ground that once the fee paid to an Advocate for contesting a case, irrespective of its fate, cannot be refunded. In the instant case, the applicant is demanding the fee back on the ground that the respondent has wrongly filed case under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereas he has engaged the counsel for seeking divorce. The filing of a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a bona fide professional act of a counsel. In normal course, a litigant is expected to sign the legal papers after going through the contents of the same and it cannot be said that the respondent has got signed blank papers from the applicant. Moreover, when the wife of the applicant has not filed any criminal complaint before the police under Section 406/498-A or in any court of law there was no occasion for the respondent to supply the copies of bail orders. In the absence of any complaint before the Bar Council or the police, the Transfer Application No.64 of 2011 3 averments made by the applicant cannot be taken as gospel truth. Such presumption/assumptions of the applicant deserves to be rejected straightway. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contentions of the learned counsel being devoid of any merit for transferring the instant case to the Court at Tarn Taran. Hence, this transfer application is dismissed in limine. However, the observations made above will not effect the merits of the case. 7.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) ms JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No