Court emphasizes that mere status as a practicing advocate does not warrant case transfer unless substantial evidence of influence or bias is shown.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application for the transfer of a civil case from the Jagraon Court, Ludhiana, to Malerkotla or another district, highlighting that the mere fact of one party being a practicing advocate is insufficient grounds for transfer. The case, titled "Jal Kaur v. Ajaib Singh Bahal @ Ajaib Singh," involved complex litigation dating back to 2000, with multiple suits and appeals filed over the years.
The applicant, Jal Kaur, initially filed civil suit No. 86-2000, and the respondents filed civil suit No. 1007-2000. Both suits were consolidated and decided by the trial court in Jagraon. Appeals and subsequent remands have seen the suits return to the trial court, now represented by Hamir Singh, legal representative of the deceased Jal Kaur.
Hamir Singh sought a transfer of the cases, alleging that respondent Ajaib Singh Bahal, a local advocate, exerted undue influence, preventing him from securing adequate legal assistance. However, the court, led by Mrs. Archana Puri, J., found the claims unsubstantiated, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence of influence or bias, as outlined under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.
In her judgment, Mrs. Archana Puri, J., cited precedent cases, including "D.A.V. College Hoshiarpur Society (Regd.) v. D.M. Sharma," and "Gurnam Singh v. Amandeep Singh," reinforcing the principle that an advocate's status alone does not justify case transfer. The court elaborated that the applicant must demonstrate specific circumstances indicating a reasonable apprehension of bias, which was absent in this instance.
The court underscored the importance of a fair trial and the judiciary's duty to ensure justice is served impartially. It stated that the judiciary must operate unimpeded by any party, including members of the legal fraternity, unless substantial grounds for apprehension are presented.
While the applicant argued that the respondent's influence impeded his ability to obtain legal representation, the court noted that Jal Kaur had previously engaged local counsel without issue. The court deemed the allegations presumptuous and unsupported by evidence, ultimately dismissing the transfer application.
This judgment highlights the judiciary's commitment to maintaining impartiality and underscores the rigorous standards required to justify the transfer of cases. It also serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the integrity of legal proceedings, ensuring they are conducted without bias or undue influence.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of case cannot be allowed merely because one of the litigants is a practicing advocate unless substantial evidence of influence or bias is demonstrated.
Statutory provision(s): Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Jal Kaur v. Ajaib Singh Bahal @ Ajaib Singh, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849090
