Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Archana Puri dismissed a request to transfer two connected civil suits pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, to a competent court at Malerkotla or another district. The applicant sought transfer on the ground that one respondent is a local advocate at Jagraon and, due to alleged influence, the applicant claimed an inability to obtain legal assistance in the Jagraon courts. The Court held that a transfer cannot be ordered on broad assertions and that the party seeking transfer must identify specific circumstances from which a reasonable apprehension of not receiving justice can be gathered; an unsubstantiated apprehension against an advocate is insufficient.

The application was filed seeking transfer of two civil suits pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, District Ludhiana, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Malerkotla or any other district. The applicant sought transfer on the ground that respondent No.1 was a local advocate at Jagraon and allegedly exercised influence, resulting in the applicant being unable to secure legal assistance at that place.

Also Read: Husband Cannot Evade Post-Divorce Maintenance Duty Citing Ex-Wife’s Education Or Parental Support: Supreme Court

It was stated that both civil suits had earlier been consolidated and decided by the trial court, following which appeals were allowed and the matters were remanded for fresh disposal. Subsequent proceedings resulted in further remand orders, and applications under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were stated to be pending before the trial court at Jagraon.

The respondents opposed the transfer plea, disputing the allegations of influence and contending that mere status of a party as an advocate could not constitute a valid ground for transfer. Reliance was placed on precedents dealing with transfer of proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The Court observed that “Section 24 CPC empowers the High Court or District Court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings, pending before it or in any Court subordinate to it or to any other Court for trial or disposal.”

It stated that “though, this gives a comprehensive power to the Courts concerned, to transfer the cases, but it ought to be noticed that there is no cast iron formula of universal application to all the situations, wherein, transfer of the litigation is under consideration.”

The Court recorded that “one differential/distinctive circumstance can change the decision of the transfer application” and that “the Courts concerned are expected to exercise this power with due care and caution.” While referring to settled principles, the Court noted that “each case has to be appreciated, in its factual background.”

Addressing the ground urged for transfer, the Court observed that “the reason assigned is that respondent No.1 is an advocate, who exercises his influence, on which account, the applicant is unable to secure legal assistance in Jagraon.”

The Court stated that “if the Court feels that the litigant, who knocks the door of the Court, is not likely to have ‘fair trial’ in the Court, from which he seeks to transfer, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such an order of transfer.”

However, it recorded that “the power to transfer a case has to be exercised, with due care and caution.” Referring to precedent, D.A.V. College Hoshiarpur Society (Regd.) v. D.M. Sharma (2005), the Court observed that “merely because the litigant is a practicing Advocate without anything more would not constitute a valid ground for transfer of the case.”

Applying these principles, the Court observed that “nowhere, it is coming forth about the manner of exercise of influence by respondent No.1 and in what manner, there was obstruction caused to the applicant, to secure legal assistance in Jagraon.”

It further recorded that "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."

The Court observed that “there has to be some circumstance and material brought forth, to show about reasonable apprehension, but the same is not pin pointed” and “raising of such apprehension, without any substance is not acceptable.”

The Court also stated 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.”

Also Read: Blatant Violation Of Environmental Norms, Loot And Plunder Of Natural Resources: Punjab And Haryana High Court Orders Sealing Of Mining Site, Seeks Chief Secretary’s Affidavit On Alleged Illegal Mining

The Court held that “no case is made out for acceptance of the transfer application. The transfer application is hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Applicant: Mr. Damanjeet Singh Batalvi, Advocate; Mr. Sourabh Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate

Case Title: Jal Kaur through LR Hamir Singh v. Ajaib Singh Bahal @ Ajaib Singh and Others

Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:011737
Case Number: TA-1002-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Archana Puri