Mere Allegation Of Influence Of Local Lawyer No Ground For Transfer Of Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court
While dismissing a plea for transfer of case from one district to another, the Punjab & Haryana High Court made it clear that the applicant has to pin point the circumstances, under which, he gathers impression that justice will not be done, mere apprehension against a lawyer is not sufficient.
The transfer plea was filed on the ground that respondent is a local advocate in the same District where the civil suit is pending, and due to his alleged influence, the applicant was unable to secure legal assistance at the Jagraon courts.
Justice Archana Puri said, "raising of such allegations about the influence of the litigant-advocate, is not sufficient, more particularly, when the litigation is pending between the parties, since long and they were represented by the counsel from the local bar."
Pin-Point Circumstance
The Court observed that, the applicant filing an application for seeking transfer has to pin point the circumstances, under which, he gathers impression that justice will not be done. He is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. But, at the same time, he has to pin-point the circumstances, from which, an impression can be gathered by this Court that it is reasonable, in view of the facts and circumstances, pointed out to transfer the case, so as to remove the apprehension.
Judicial Function Cant Be Stone-Walled By Litigants, Lawyers
Justice Puri observed that the judicial functioning cannot and should not be permitted to be stone-walled, either by the ordinary litigants or by the members of the Bar. The process of judicial delivery system, ought to run its even course, unbridled by any litigant, be it a private person or an advocate of the bar, where the litigation is pending.
The transfer application was filed by Jal Kaur (since deceased) through her legal representative Hamir Singh, seeking transfer of Civil Suits along pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, District Ludhiana, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Malerkotla or any other district.
The principal ground urged for transfer was that respondent is a local advocate at Jagraon, and due to his alleged influence, the applicant was unable to secure legal assistance at the Jagraon courts.
The respondents also submitted that respondent , aged about 78 years, had not been in active legal practice for several years due to age-related ailments. It was pointed out that till 2015, Jal Kaur had been represented by a leading local advocate, and the plea of inability to engage counsel was an afterthought.
After examining the submissions, the High Court noted that although Section 24 CPC confers wide powers on courts to transfer cases, such power must be exercised judiciously, with due care and caution, and no straightjacket formula can be applied.
Referring to the decision in D.A.V. College Hoshiarpur Society (Regd.) v. D.M. Sharma (2005), the Court reiterated that merely because one of the litigants is an advocate, it cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for transfer, unless there is material to show overreaching conduct or real likelihood of bias affecting a fair trial.
The Court observed that the applicant had made vague and general allegations of influence without specifying the manner in which respondent No.1 had allegedly obstructed access to legal assistance. It was also significant that the litigation had continued for decades at Jagraon, during which Jal Kaur herself had been represented by local counsel without any grievance.
Holding that the apprehension expressed by the applicant was presumptive and unsupported by any substantive material, the High Court concluded that no case for transfer was made out.
Title: Jal Kaur through her LR Hamir Singh v. Ajaib Singh Bahal @ Ajaib Singh and others
Mr.Damanjeet Singh Batalvi and Mr.Sourabh Kaushik, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr.Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.