T.A. No. 473 of 2009 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No. 473 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.8.2010 Suresh Saggar .. Applicant v. Ramesh Chaudhary .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. KPS Sandhu, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the application is for transfer of the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of 20,00,000/- from the applicant at Amritsar to any other court. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent in the present case is a senior reputed counsel practising in District Courts at Amritsar. He filed a suit claiming ` 20,00,000/- from him as compensation on various counts. Since he is a senior counsel there, no other counsel practising in District Court is ready to accept the brief against him on account of which the applicant will not be able to defend the case properly. The prayer is for transfer of the suit to any other place except Amritsar and Tarn Taran. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contested the application stating therein that the applicant had been indulging the respondent in various kinds of litigation, who merely represented the brother of the applicant as a counsel in litigation between the parties. He even filed complaints before the Bar Council, contempt petition, criminal complaints against the respondent, which continued for years together. In all those cases, either the applicant was represented by a counsel or he was appearing in person. Considering the conduct of the applicant, there is no reason for transfer of the suit filed by the respondent from Amritsar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. A perusal of the paper book shows that in the reply filed by the respondent, number of instances have been given, where the applicant had made T.A. No. 473 of 2009 [ 2] various types of allegations against the respondent and also filed criminal complaints, contempt petitions and also complaint to the Bar Council, Punjab and Haryana. The applicant had been prosecuting that litigation for a long period, either in person or represented through counsel. The details, as furnished in the reply filed by the respondent are extracted hereunder: “6.7 ............................... In furtherance of such evil motives, the petitioner filed various false and frivolous applications/criminal complaints, details of which are as under: i. Answering respondent's client Sh. Vijay Saggar has filed an Eviction Petition against his tenant Parlhad Sharma, which was entrusted to the court of Sh. Kishore Kumar, Rent Controller, Amritsar. Due to an inadvertent error, the respondent No. 2 was described as a tenant though the said person was a surety for payment of rent. Much prior to the service of the process upon the respondents concerned, an application for amendment was filed to make necessary correction in the said application which was purely a clerical mistake. ii. In the said Eviction Application, the petitioner moved an application U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC and also filed a criminal complaint as well as an application under the contempt of Courts Act on 15.4.2002 against the respondent as well as his client on false and frivolous accusations that some rent note has been forged. Subsequently, the petitioner made a statement to withdraw the said application filed under Contempt of Courts Act, however, he again resiled from statement. It is, however, a matter of record that the court of Smt. Harpreet Kaur Randhawa, the then CJ (SD)-cum- Rent Controller, Amritsar passed a detailed order dismissing the contempt application as well as criminal complaint. Despite the same, by making certain misrepresentations, the petitioner succeeded in getting a reference made to the police authorities for investigation even against the answering respondent despite the said complaint having been withdrawn qua him. Consequently, the answering respondent was called by the T.A. No. 473 of 2009 [ 3] police; his statement was recorded and it was unequivocally concluded during the enquiry by the police that the allegations are bereft of any substance as the original rent note is in possession of the petitioner himself and he has misrepresented to the court. iii. The answering respondent's client Vijay Saggar filed a transfer application for entrustment of different cases pending in different courts to one court and the said application was filed in the court of Sh. V. P. Handa, the then District Judge, Amritsar. The said application, however, was dismissed by the court of Sh. M. R. Batra, District Judge. Upon dismissal of the same, the petitioner moved a complaint U/s 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act on 15.4.2002 against the answering respondent and others for not disclosing earlier Transfer application moved by Vijay Saggar himself in person. It is pertinent to mention that the answering respondent was not the counsel when earlier transfer application was moved by his client in his personal capacity. It is a matter of record that the said proceedings were withdrawn again against the answering respondent on a statement made by the petitioner in the court and the court of Sh. M. R. Batra, D. J. Amritsar was pleased to allow the withdrawal of the same. Despite the said orders, the petitioner submitted written arguments that complaint against the answering respondent be not withdrawn. Thereafter the answering respondent was summoned as witness in the said case, however, vide order dated 5.11.2005 Sh. Gurdev Singh the then District Judge, Amritsar discharged the answering respondent from appearing as a witness. The petitioner still did not desist and continued to harass the petitioner by moving an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the answering respondent as well as his Clerk. 6.8 The petitioner again moved a criminal complaint against Vijay Saggar in which the answering respondent was T.A. No. 473 of 2009 [ 4] summoned as a witness in the court of Sh. PS Rai, the then JMIC, Amritsar. Upon the application moved by the answering respondent for discharging him from appearing as witness, the learned court allowed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the answering respondent, which was dismissed by the court of Sh. P. S. Rai, the then JMIC, Amritsar vide order dated 28.3.2007 against which defendant moved a Revision Petition. Revision was preferred against the said order by the petitioner in the court of Sessions which was also been dismissed by the court of Sh. Karnail Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 7.7.2008. 6.9 In yet another case pending in the court of Sh. T. S. Bindra, Rent Controller, Amritsar the petitioner moved an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. requesting the court to pass necessary order to register FIR under Sections 182, 192, 195, 420 and 120-B IPC arraying the answering respondent as accused on the premises that he in a criminal conspiracy with Vijay Saggar had cheated and deceived the learned court of Sh. T. S. Bindra and obtained adjournment on 28.10.2004 by misrepresentation and giving false information in the petition filed as Vijay Saggar Versus Kirti Grover. The said complaint was found to be false by Sh. T. S. Bindra and was accordingly dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2006. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 7.7.2008. Undeterred in spewing his venom against the answering respondent, the petitioner also moved an application under Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act in the same case in the court of Sh. T. S. Bindra, Civil Judge, Amritsar which was also been subsequently dismissed by the court of Sh. Harsh Mehta, the then Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amritsar vide order dated 11.2.2009. 6.10 In another case titled as `Vijay Saggar Versus Parlhad T.A. No. 473 of 2009 [ 5] Sharma' pending in the court of Sh. Sumit Ghai, Civil Judge, Amritsar, a contempt application and criminal complaint has been filed by the petitioner against the answering respondent which is also pending adjudication. Needless to say that the said proceedings are completely lacking in bonafides and is merely an attempt at witch- hunting by the petitioner. 6.11 Continuing with his concocted stories, the petitioner falsely alleged that on 5.8.2005, the answering respondent had physically assaulted him outside the court of Sh. P. S. Rai, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. After one year of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner moved a false complaint before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana as there was no merit in the complaint for referring the matter to committee. Petitioner filed a revision petition against the said decision before the Bar Council of India which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.8.2006. Still not done, the petitioner filed a review petition in the Bar Council of India, whereupon the revision petition was ordered to be reheard. However, finally vide a categoric order dated 13.4.2008, the revision petition was again dismissed. Continuing with his malicious and mindless defamatory campaign, the petitioner again filed a false criminal complaint for registering a case against Sh. Surya Narayan, the then Chairman of Bar Council of India as well as against the answering respondent. The matter was referred to the police authorities for investigation, whereupon it was found that the complaint filed by the petitioner is false and baseless. Vide order dated 22.4.2009, the court of Sh. Karnail Singh, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar was pleased to dismiss the complaint in so far as and to the extent the offences under Sections 167, 192, 217, 218, 219, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC are concerned, however, directions were issued to the petitioner to produce the preliminary T.A. No. 473 of 2009 [ 6] evidence with regard to allegations of beating by the answering respondent on 5.8.2005. The said issue is yet pending adjudication. A revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner in the court of Sessions against the aforestated order which is also pending adjudication in the court of Sessions, wherein the petitioner is taking unnecessary adjournments by moving false applications. It is significant to mention that the petitioner has indulged in deliberate character assassination of the answering respondent and Sh. Surya Naraayan Parshad, the Chairman of Bar Council of India as well as all the members of the Bar Council of India. Absolutely uncalled for, unwarranted and false allegations were levelled that the Chairman of the Bar Council along with the members of the Bar Council of India have dismissed the revision petition on 13.4.2008 by adopting corrupt means and methods under the influence of answering respondent.” Not only this, the respondent also extracted in the reply the deposition made by the applicant in a pending litigation on 3.2.2010 stating therein that he had been personally pursing the litigation after getting advice from lawyers of Amritsar. The extract thereof is as under: “I have been personally pursing the aforesaid cases but I obtain legal advice from outside. I cannot disclose the names of the Advocates who are giving me such legal advice because this is a confidential matter between me and such legal advisors. The number of the advocates who are providing me legal advice in Amritsar itself is more than 6/7 advocates again said these are 1-2 advocates. I go to my advocates for my cases which they are pursuing and I also go through their libraries. I often quotes various citations of various decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts and even often make reference of such judgments in my pleadings put before the various courts. I also argue the cases sometimes before the Hon'ble High Court with the assistance of Advocates practising in Hon'ble High Courts.” Considering the fact that the applicant is pursuing a lot of litigation against the respondent in the courts at Amritsar only either appearing in person or through counsel, there is no reason to transfer this particular case out of Amritsar. T.A. No. 473 of 2009 [ 7] For the reasons mentioned above, the present application is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 23.8.2010 mk