NIKHIL SHARMA Vs. A.N. BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this CM Nikhil Sharma, student of MBBS at P.V. Narsimha Rao Medical College, Jolly Grant Dehra Dun, UP has prayed for the transfer of civil suit titled "A.N. Bhardwaj, Advocate and another v. Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant Dehra Dun (UP)" from Ludhiana court to some court of competent jurisdiction either at Chandigarh or in Haryana.

(2.) ACCORDING to Nikhil Sharma petitioner, Amrinder Bhardwaj-respondent herein joined the said college for MBBS course on 15.12.1997 against a paid seat. A sum of Rs. 11,49,500/- is said to have (been) paid by him toward the admission of the said course to the college authorities. Amrinder Bhardwaj returned to Ludhiana on 20.12.1997 when the medical college was closed for winter vacation as he found that he would not be able to measure up to the level of intelligence and hard work required for studying MBBS. His father had paid quite a hefty amount for the admission of his son to the said course. He forced him to return to the medical college after the winter vacation when it reopened on 3.1.1998 for continuing his studies. He again returned to Ludhiana in the first week of January, 1998. On his return to Ludhiana, Shri A.N. Bhardwaj who is an advocate cooked up a story that his son had to give up studies at Dehra Dun due to his alleged ragging because otherwise he could have no case for seeking the refund of the amount paid by him. Respondents filed suit in the court of Ludhiana claiming a sum of Rs. 31,49,500/- comprising Rs. 11,49,500/- paid as fee etc. and Rs. 20 lacs as damages. In civil suit, he (Nikhil Sharma) has been arrayed as defendant No. 5. In the civil suit, they have stated that plaintiff-Amrinder Bhardwaj had to discontinue his studies at Dehra Dun because of his ragging at Dehra Dun by him (Nikhil Sharma) and another student named Vaibhav Gupta. Vaibhav Gupta has been impleaded as defendant No. 6 in the civil Suit. He was involved in the alleged ragging of Amrinder Bhardwaj on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. In fact, Amrinder Bhardwaj had to leave MBBS studies at Dehra Dun because he found that he was not that mentally equipped as to understand what was being taught in MBBS. It is alleged by Nikhil Sharma-petitioner in support of his prayer for the transfer of the suit pending at Ludhiana that A.N. Bhardwaj-respondent No. 1 is an advocate at Ludhiana. No cause of action has arisen on Ludhiana. If any cause of action arose, that arose at Dehra Dun. He wove a net so as to confer jurisdiction on Ludhiana Court in the hope that he wields influence at Ludhiana and he would be able to have his way at Ludhiana. On receipt of summons he and his father came to Ludhiana to engage a counsel. They were man-handled by some people when they were trying to contact some advocate for engaging counsel for him in the case. He and his father were told that no lawyer there at Ludhiana would be allowed to appear for them and if some one agreed to accept their brief, he would have to face dire consequences. They tried their best to engage some advocate at Ludhiana for them. No advocate at Ludhiana agreed to accept their brief because of the influence of A.N. Bhardwaj being wielded in the Bar. Consequently, a lawyer was engaged by them from Chandigarh who put in appearance on 30.10.1998. Case was adjourned to 16.12.1998 for filing of the written statement. No other defendant has put in appearance in the case but for him (Nikhil Sharma). A.N. Bhardwaj got the other defendants proceeded ex parte with the exercise of his influence. No procedure as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure was followed to ensure proper service on the other defendants. Neither process for service on them was sent to Dehra Dun nor substituted service was resorted to, on them. It is alleged that the petitioner is apprehending that because of the influence of Sh. A.N. Bhardwaj, court will lean in his favour and decree the suit. This apprehension has arisen in his mind because of the slipshod manner in which trial of the suit is proceeding. Due procedure for service on the defendants has been ignored and said good-bye. On 1.11.1998, counsel engaged by him and his wife met with very serious accident while they were returning from Delhi. His counsel suffered fracture in right leg, besides several injuries on other parts of the body. HIs wife also received head injury. Both were admitted to PGI, Chandigarh and were advised complete rest for 3/4 months. On 16.12.1998, the counsel deputed his junior to appear before the court and requested for adjournment of the case to some date in March, 1999 as the counsel was not in proper shape and was unable to attend to his professional work and could not undertake travel. That request for adjournment was opposed by A.N. Bhardwaj. Court did not agree to grant adjournment till March/April and adjourned the case only to 9.1.1999 for filing the written statement. On 9.1.1999 court granted adjournment on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs and adjourned the case to 6.2.1999, although adjournment should have been allowed without payment of costs because counsel was confined to bed due to the fractured leg and he was not in proper shape to draft the written statement. On 6.2.1999, junior to his counsel reiterated the same request through application. Court happened to be on leave. Case was adjourned to 5.3.1999 by the reader of the court. No order on that application was passed. On 5.3.1999, counsel got the written statement prepared and sent it to the court through clerk as he himself was not yet fit to undertake travel. On 27.3.1999 counsel attended the court and reached the court at 10.45 a.m. The case figured very low in the cause list and was not called till 1.00 p.m. Counsel enquired about the case and he was informed that the case had been called at about 10.30 when A.N. Bhardwaj was present and it was adjourned to 3.5.1999 for recording of the evidence of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that though it was on the record of the court that an outside counsel was appearing and also that he was not well, court did not wait and pass over the case for some time and adjourned the case to a date suiting to the convenience of A.N. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Since counsel mainly practises in the High Court at Chandigarh, prayer was made to the court to adjourn the case to any date falling on any Saturday. Court directed the counsel to call the opposite counsel. When the opposite counsel came court observed that on Saturdays, Advocates in Ludhiana Courts do not work and as such the case could not be adjourned to a Saturday. 27.3.1999 itself was a Saturday when Sh. Bhardwaj and other advocates were attending to their cases in the courts at Ludhiana. It is alleged that A.N. Bhardwaj will not allow him to have justice in this case because of the influence he wields at Ludhiana being a practising advocate there.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.