JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is an application seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 102 instituted on 16.5.2002 and Civil Suit No. 395 dated 5.11.2001 titled as “Amandeep Singh v. Arvinder Singh and others” pending between the parties before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur. The principal ground for transfer of the aforementioned suits is pleaded in para 14 of the petition. It has been asserted that plaintiff respondent No. 1 Amandeep Singh is a leading Advocate practicing in the District Court, Sangrur and is having more than 15 years of practice. It is further asserted that he has considerable influence over the members of the Bar and the afore-mentioned suits being his personal cases none of the effective Advocates from the District Bar, Sangrur is coming forward to appear for the defendant-petitioner.
2. In the reply filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1, the stand taken is that three Advocate have been engaged by the defendant-petitioner namely Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Garg, Shri Rattan Singh Maur and Shri Ram Lal Garg who is assisted by Shri Ashish Garg. It has been asserted that Shri Ram Lal is a very senior counsel having 45 years practice to this credit. He is assisted by Shri Ashish Garg, his son, who has also experience of over 16 years. A certificate from the District Bar Association has been attached as Annexure R/1 highlighting the standing of the aforesaid counsel engaged by the defendant-petitioner. It has further been asserted that the plaintiff-respondent has already completed his evidence in both the suits which have been clubbed and defendant-petitioner has also examined six witnesses. The afore-mentioned statement has been made on instructions from Sh. Amandeep Singh who is present in the Court. The assertions made in the written statement are sought to be controverted by filing replication. The defendant-petitioner has attached certain interlocutory orders with the replication to buttress his stand that his counsel is not effectively prosecuting the case.
3. Mr. R.D. Bawa, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the apprehension in the mind of the defendant-petitioner is that his interest would suffer as he is not getting any effective assistance from any counsel of repute and his choice. Referring to the order dated 16.7.20 (Annexure P-5), the learned counsel has pointed out that cross-examination was not conducted by the Advocate Shri R.L. Garg who had 45 years standing at the Bar or by Shri Ashish Garg which deprived him benefit of mature professionals. He has further argued that no other counsel had put in appearance for cross-examination of PW-13 despite being called by the Court.
4. He has then referred to the order dated 13.3.2004 wherein his counsel has given up the application for amendment of the written statement filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The learned counsel has also referred to the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge where his counsel has not pressed the revision petition (Annexure P-7). In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Bina Rani v. Raj Kumar, 1992 C.C.C. 276 and a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Goriparthi Gayatri v. Goriparthi Srinivasa Rao, 2003 Supp. Civil and Rent Judicial Reports 356.
5. Shri Arun Palli, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has argued that two suits were filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The first suit was filed in the year 2001 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner. Despite the stay order granted by the Courts he was dispossessed which resulted into filing of another suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in 2002. As the cause of action had arisen in close succession in respect of same property both the suits have been clubbed. The plaintiff-respondent has already adduced his whole evidence and has closed the same whereas the defendant-petitioner has also examined six witnesses. According to the learned counsel the bonafide of the defendant-petitioner in seeking transfer of the proceedings in two suits could be gauged from the fact that the instant petition had been filed only after the proceedings have advanced quite far. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of DAV College Hoshiarpur Society (Regd.) and Anr. v. D.M. Sharma and Ors., (2004-3)138 P.L.R. 578 and argued that the mere fact that the litigation is between a lawyer and an ordinary citizen cannot constitute a valid ground for transfer of the case unless it is further shown that such a person is likely to suffer some prejudice at the hands of the Presiding Officer or on account of close proximity between the litigant lawyer and the lawyer of the ordinary citizen.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments made in their pleadings, I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merit. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the transfer petition on 1.3.2004 which was returned to the counsel with some objections and the same was refiled on 4.3.2004. When the matter came up for consideration on 5.3.2004, 8.3.2004, 11.3.2004, 1.4.2004, 3.5.2004 a request was made by or on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment of the case except on 1.7.2004 when the learned counsel did not appear. On 1.7.2004 when the matter came up for consideration the petition was admitted and notice regarding stay to respondent No. 1 was issued. On 24.8.2004, this Court granted stay of proceedings before the trial Court. In the meanwhile, the trial Court has already proceeded to complete the evidence of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and even six witnesses of defendant-petitioner have already been examined. The stage of the proceedings has not been disclosed in the petition which has been revealed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 who is present in the Court. It is well settled that a prayer for transfer could be entertained at the initial stage of the proceedings. In the present case, on the date when the proceedings were stayed by this Court on 24.8.2004, the proceedings have advanced to almost completion stage.
7. Even otherwise apart from the allegations that plaintiff-respondent is an Advocate it is not established that the defendant-petitioner is not effectively prosecuting the case through counsel. A perusal of interlocutory order (Annexure P-5) would show that PW-13 was cross-examination at length by Shri Ashish Garg and on that date the evidence by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was closed. The case was posted for 4.8.2004 for the evidence of the defendant-petitioner. Similarly, a perusal of the order dated 13.3.2004 (Annexure P-6) would show that the application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. has been dealt with on merits and the submissions made by both sides have been taken into consideration. This order also does not suggest that the case of the defendant-petitioner is not being prosecuted effectively, Dealing with the question that if a litigant is merely practising Advocate, this Court in D.M. Sharma’s case (supra) observed as under:
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record and judgments of this Court, I am of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed because the principal argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable namely that if the litigation has been initiated by an Advocate or against the Advocate that alone would be a sufficient ground for seeking transfer of proceedings under Section 24 of the Code. This argument if accepted would have pernicious and deleterious effect on the administration of justice. In a given case there may be a possibility of establishing the relationship of a particular Advocate with the Presiding Officer and the same may constitute a ground for transfer but merely because the litigant is a practising Advocate without anything more would not constitute a valid ground for transfer of the case. If such a principle is accepted, then all cases concerning member of the legal fraternity have to be contested at a place other than the one where the member of the Bar is practising. Such a general ostracism of legal fraternity is impermissible. The judgments of this Court which has been cited by the learned counsel do not lay down any Rule of the law warranting acceptance of the prayer made.”
It is thus obvious that no general proposition of law could be laid down that whenever a litigation is initiated by an Advocate or against an Advocate then the case is to be transferred from the local area where such an Advocate practices. If such a rule of law is laid down then all cases concerning members of the legal fraternity have to be decided and prosecuted at a place other than the one where the Member of the Bar is practising. It has been observed that such a general ostracism of legal fraternity is impermissible.
For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs.