T.A. No. 296 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. T.A. No. 296 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 27, 2009 Tarsem Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Punjab Wakf Board and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-Tarsem Singh is one of the defendants in a case filed by Punjab Wakf Board for possession and recovery of rent and for mesne profits from the defendants on account of their unauthorized use and occupation of the property. The claim of the petitioner in the written statement is that he has stepped into the shoes of Chaman Lal, tenant with the consent of the owner of the property, namely, Harpal Singh. T.A. No. 296 of 2009 [2] This petition has been filed for transfer of the suit for recovery filed by Punjab Wakf Board against defendants including the petitioner on the ground that in an earlier suit filed by Col. Harpal Singh for permanent injunction, the Presiding Officer of the Wakf Tribunal has already expressed his opinion regarding the rights of Harpal Singh for injunction in the property in dispute. As the opinion stands already expressed qua Harpal Singh, the rights of the petitioner will be prejudiced. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in an application filed for transfer before the District Judge, Amritsar, in the comments submitted, the Presiding officer had stated that he had already decided a suit of Harpal Singh expressing his mind. I have gone through the judgment passed in the case of Harpal Singh which has been attached with the petition as annexure P-1. A perusal of para 15 of the judgment indicates that the suit for injunction filed by Harpal Singh has been dismissed on the ground that the present petitioner i.e. Tarsem Singh who was not a party in the earlier case was in possession of the property as a lessee on the basis of lease deed dated August 2, 1999 which was Ex.P3/1 in the said case. Nothing prejudicial has been observed regarding the possession of the petitioner in the said judgment by the Presiding Officer, moreover, even if anything has been observed at his back, the same would not be binding upon the petitioner, whether the petitioner is liable for eviction, has not been decided in the earlier case. In any case the petitioner is not claiming ownership over the property in dispute. T.A. No. 296 of 2009 [3] In view of the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by Wakf Board against the petitioner need not be transferred from the Court of Sh.Karnail Singh, Additional District Judge, Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, as there has not been any prejudicial adjudication against the petitioner in the earlier suit. Dismissed. August 27, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE