JAGDISH SARAN AND ANOTHER Vs. ANIL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for transferring P.A. Case No. 25 of 2002 (Anil Kumar Jain vs. Shri Jagdish Saran and another) pending before the Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad, outside the district of Ghaziabad to any other Court having competent jurisdiction. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the petitioners in respect of Shop No. 186(2), the details whereof are given in the release application (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 25 of 2002.

(2.) IT is, inter-alia, alleged in the writ petition that the release application was filed by the respondent through his counsel Shri B.K. Gupta, but at the same time, the respondent has also authorized three other counsel to appear and argue and thus Vakalatnamas of four Advocates mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, (namely, S/Sri Rakesh Kumar Jain, D.K. Tyagi, Rakesh Jain and B.K. Gupta) who are practising at Ghaziabad Civil Court, have been filed in the said P.A. Case No. 25 of 2002; and that thus, the respondent has engaged four counsel in the said P.A. Case No. 25 of 2002. It is, inter-alia, alleged in the writ petition that the father of the respondent Late Shri Chandra Bhan Jain was himself a Senior Advocate practising at Ghaziabad and was having a considerable influence over the members of Bar/Bench and even after his death his name still exercise influence in Courts at Ghaziabad ; and that the real brother of the respondent himself is a practising Advocate at Ghaziabad, and is one of the aforesaid four Advocates who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent ; and that Affidavit of Evidence filed in support of the case of the respondent are also those of the Advocates who are practising in Courts at Ghaziabad, namely, (i) Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Advocate, (ii) Shri Rajeshwar Dayal, Advocate and Shri Rohtas Gautam, Advocate.

(3.) A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition shows that the petitioners have made only general and vague allegations lacking in material particulars. Merely because the respondent has engaged four counsel on his behalf, or because the father of the respondent Late Shri Chandra Bhan Jain happened to be a Senior Advocate practising at Ghaziabad, or because the real brother of the respondent is a practising Advocate at Ghaziabad and has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent, in my opinion, do not provide a reasonable basis for apprehension that the petitioners will not get justice in Courts at Ghaziabad. It is merely suggested in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the name of the Late Shri Chandra Bhan Jain (father of the respondent) still exercises influence in Courts at Ghaziabad.