High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rekha Jhanji Brar vs Sohan Lal Jhanji And Others on 21 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rekha Jhanji Brar vs Sohan Lal Jhanji And Others on 21 October, 2008
TA No.204 of 2008                                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH.


                                        TA No.204 of 2008
                                        Date of Decision: 21.10.2008

Rekha Jhanji Brar                                          .....Applicant

                                 Vs.

Sohan Lal Jhanji and others                                ....Respondents

                                 ....
CORAM :      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

                                 ****

Present :    Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Keshav Kataria,
             Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Vibhu Raj Jhanji, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.

….

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

Prayer in this application is for transfer of civil suit titled as

“Sohan Lal Jhanji and another V. Rekha Jhanji and others” pending in the

Court of Sh.Ranjeev Kumar, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagraon, to any

other Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh.

The applicant has put forth a claim for transfer of the suit, on

the ground that respondent no.2 (the plaintiff) is a practising advocate at

Jagraon. Two of his sons are practising advocates, one at Jagraon and the

other at Ludhiana. It is further asserted that respondent no.1’s son is a

practising advocate at Ludhiana. The applicant, therefore, apprehends that

in view of their influence at Jagraon, she would not be able to effectively

defend the suit at Jagraon. It is further asserted that the applicant has retired

as a Professor from Panjab University, Chandigarh and her husband is still
TA No.204 of 2008 2

serving as a Professor at the said University. She has no one to help her in

her litigation and travelling to Jagraon on each and every date, to defend her

suit, would cause serious inconvenience to the applicant in her defence of

the above suit. It is also submitted that a part of the suit property is situated

at Chandigarh and in case the suit is transferred to Chandigarh, it would be

transferred to a Court that has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Counsel for the respondents, however, asserts that there is no

presumption, whether in fact or in law that merely because the respondents

are advocates or their children are advocates, practising at Jagraon and

Ludhiana, they would be in a position to exercise influence over Courts or

prevent the applicant from effectively pursuing her defence. It is submitted

that the applicant has retired as a Professor from the Panjab University and

is, therefore, an educated lady, aware of her rights and, therefore, cannot

raise a plea that she would be hampered in defending the suit at Jagraon. It

is further submitted that the applicant is pursuing the suit through her

counsel and has filed an application for striking off pleadings in the plaint

and, therefore, counsel for the applicant to contend that the applicant is

hampered in her defence, is a mere ruse to seek transfer to the place of her

residence i.e. Chandigarh. It is, therefore, prayed that the application for

transfer be dismissed, as it is devoid of any merit.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

pleadings, as also the written arguments submitted by counsel for the

respondents.

I find no reason to accept the prayer for transfer of the suit.

The mere fact that the respondents are advocates or their children are

advocates practising at Jagraon and Ludhiana, are by themselves
TA No.204 of 2008 3

insufficient to transfer the case. In the absence of any substantial allegation

or any overt act that may give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the

applicant would be impaired in her defence at Jagraon, or would be denied

justice, the applicant’s prayer, based upon an unfounded apprehension,

cannot be accepted. While considering a prayer for transfer, a Court cannot

arbitrarily transfer a case so as to suit the convenience of one party or the

other. The applicant is an educated lady, who retired as a Professor from the

Panjab University and is already defending another suit at Jagraon. A suit

filed in a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be transferred on the mere

whim of a party.

In view of what has been stated herein above, the prayer for

transfer of the suit is declined and the present application is dismissed.

At this stage, counsel for the applicant states that an alternative

prayer for transfer of the suit to Ludhiana may be considered. Such a prayer

would fall within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Ludhiana and the

applicant may, if so advised, file an application in accordance with law.

21.10.2008                                          (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS                                                       JUDGE