Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar Son Of Shri Banwari Lal Son ... vs Satya Parkash Sharma Son Of Shri Ram ... on 4 July, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Transfer Application No.330 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:04.07.2012
Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Banwari Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram,
resident of Jawahar Nagar, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh
(Haryana).
...Petitioner
versus
Satya Parkash Sharma son of Shri Ram Bilas Sharma, resident of
Narnaul, Bishbedar Kasba Narnaul, at present 2-3-508, Ambarpet,
Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. Application for transfer is made on the ground that he has no confidence in the Court since the respondent is a practicing counsel in that Court and the manner of adjournment of the case made by the Court from 24.04.2012 to 14.08.2012 without passing an order in the application for stay excites suspicion. If a case is adjourned to a date which is inconvenient, it ought to have been stated so before the Court and an order requested to be passed immediately. A mere adjournment of the case cannot be a ground Transfer Application No.330 of 2012 (O&M) -2- for creating a suspicion in the mind of the party. Same way, I cannot allow for the fact that a litigant is a lawyer to prevail to make an inference that the lawyer will have influence over the Judge. It is a daily experience that many a lawyer figure as litigants themselves in matters pertaining to their own properties or personal interest and if we must start looking for a prejudice in the mind of the Judge towards a lawyer by the fact that the lawyer has turned out to be a litigant, then we need to believe ourselves to be guided by a new jurisprudence that the lawyers cannot have any cases in the Court where they are practicing and they must look for new jurisdiction to file the cases. This shall not be.
2. The learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in Yoginder Sarin Versus Varinder Kumar Sarin-1993(1) RRR 492 where this Court has found that when respondent is the practicing advocate, it would be in the interest of justice that the case is not tried by a Court where he was practicing. Respectfully I disagree with the view taken by this Court earlier to the above extent.
3. The learned counsel also refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Versus Kandi Friends Education Trusst and others-2008(1) RCR (Civil) 821, where the Court was making an observation about the fact that no progress had been made for 3 years as a ground for making a transfer. We do not have a situation of a trial being needlessly held up by the conduct of a Judge. An Transfer Application No.330 of 2012 (O&M) -3- adjournment by 4 months is hardly a reason to excite a suspicion in mind of the litigant. The learned counsel also refers to me to the observations of the Court about the need for a free trial before a Court. I have no reason to suspect that a free trial or an unbiased approach would be lost by the fact that one of the parties is a practicing lawyer.
4. Application is frivolous and it is dismissed as such.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.07.2012 sanjeev