Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1396 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Balbir Singh

2008-08-19

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 5.4.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide which three suits filed by the petitioner for recovery, have been ordered to be transferred from the Court of Sh. K.K. Bansal, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana to that of Sh. S.S. Jossan, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana. 2. The respondent had sought transfer of the cases on the allegation that the conduct of Sh. K.K. Bansal, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana showed that he was favourable to the petitioner herein. A specific allegation was made that on 24.3.2007 the petitioner was seen coming out of the house of the said judge and thus they would not get justice from that said Court. 3. The learned Court below though contested the application. The comments revealed in the application showed his desire to give no objection for transferring of the said cases. 4. The learned District Judge did not go into the details of the case and prima facie allegations have not been proved. However, keeping in view the no objection by Mr. K.K. Bansal, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana the cases stand transferred to the Court of Sh. S.S. Jossan, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that once allegations for transferring were not believed the learned District Judge ought to have not transferred the cases to any other Court. In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of S. Sher Singh v. Raghu Pati Kapur and Anr. 1967 P.L.J. 673 to contend that when in the transfer application aspersions are made against judge then the same amount to contempt of Court. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case Dr. Hardi Singh v. Bhagat Jaswant Singh and Ors. 1964 P.L.J. 331 contends that the transfer of case can only be ordered when the apprehensions are based on material and not on mere asking. The Honble High Court in the said case Dr. Hardit Singh v. Bhagat Jaswant Singh and Ors. Hardi Singh v. Bhagat Jaswant Singh and Ors. 1964 P.L.J. 331 contends that the transfer of case can only be ordered when the apprehensions are based on material and not on mere asking. The Honble High Court in the said case Dr. Hardit Singh v. Bhagat Jaswant Singh and Ors. (supra) held as under: Held, that where the facts and circumstances do not disclose that there was reasonable apprehension in the petitioners mind that he would not get a fair and impartial trial from court the case cannot be transferred. Fanciful ideas, imaginary suspicions and capricious beliefs are no substitute for and cannot be equated with reasonable apprehension. Some times the language used by the subordinate Judge in his comment on the allegations made in the transfer application may indicate that the allegations made against him have upset him and have perhaps aroused his indignation as a result of feelings of resentment. It is a vital element in the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it must also be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done; in other words that it should be clearly plain to the parties to the litigation that justice is being administered in an even handed manner by a sober, impartial and upright judge. The Judge, it may be remembered, is expected to be serene and disciplined, even though his patience may be surely tried. No litigant should leave the court feeling reasonably that his case has not been heard or considered its merits by an impartial judge who is uninfluenced by an extraneous consideration outside the judicial sphere or by injudicious emotions or feelings of dislike, hostility or indignation against him. However, a litigant should not be allowed deliberately and designedly to create by his own conduct a situation adverse to himself and then to take advantage from it. Such tactics should not be allowed to interfere with the normal function of courts. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7 The learned District Judge at his own wisdom did not go into the details of the allegations made and transferred the case in view of no objection by the learned trial Court. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7 The learned District Judge at his own wisdom did not go into the details of the allegations made and transferred the case in view of no objection by the learned trial Court. The District Judge has power to transfer the case even without application have been moved and, thus, the order to transfer the cases cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case of S. Sher Singh v. Raghu Pati Kapur and Anr. (supra) this Court considered the fact as to whether the allegations leveled in transfer application would not amount to contempt of Court. No reference for initiating contempt proceedings had been made by the learned trial Court in view of the allegations leveled. Rather the learned District Judge did not comment upon the allegations leveled against the learned trial Judge. The Judgment in the case of Dr. Hardit Singh v. Bhagat Jaswant Singh and Ors. (supra) has also no relevance to the facts of the present case as the said case was based on peculiar facts of the said case and the Court considered as to whether the allegations constitute a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party with regard to the fair trial. No such occasion has arisen in the present case. 9. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed.