GURNAM SINGH Vs. AMANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 102 instituted on 16.5.2002 and Civil Suit No. 395 dated 5.11.2001 titled as "Amandeep Singh v. Arvinder Singh and others" pending between the parties before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur. The principal ground for transfer of the afore-mentioned suits is pleaded in para 14 of the petition. It has been asserted that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Amandeep Singh is a leading Advocate practising in the District Court, Sangrur and is having more than 15 years of practice. It is further asserted that he has considerable influence over the members of the Bar and the afore-mentioned suits being his personal cases none of the effective Advocates from the District Bar, Sangrur is coming forward to appear for the defendant-petitioner.

(2.) IN the reply filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1, the stand taken is that three Advocates have been engaged by the defendant-petitioner namely Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Garg, Shri Rattan Singh Maur and Shri Ram Lal Garg who is assisted by Shri Ashish Garg. It has been asserted that Shri Ram Lal Garg is a very senior counsel having 45 years practice to this credit. He is assisted by Shri Ashish Garg, his son, who has also experience of over 16 years. A certificate from the District Bar Association has been attached as Annexure R/1 highlighting the standing of the aforesaid counsel engaged by the defendant-petitioner. It has further been asserted that the plaintiff- respondent has already completed his evidence in both the suits which have been clubbed and defendant-petitioner has also examined six witnesses. The afore-mentioned statement has been made on instructions from Sh. Amandeep Singh wo is present in the Court. The assertions made in the written statement are sought to be controverted by filing replication. The defendant-petitioner has attached certain interlocutory orders with the replication to buttress his stand that his counsel is not effectively prosecuting the case.

(3.) HE has then referred to the order dated 13.3.2004 wherein his counsel has given up the application for amendment of the written statement filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The learned counsel has also referred to the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge where his counsel has not pressed the revision petition (Annexure P-7). In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Bina Rani v. Raj Kumar, 1992 CCC 276 and a judgment of the Andhara Pradesh High Court in the case of Goriparthi Gayatri v. Goriparthi Srinivasa Rao, 2003 Supp. Civil and Rent Judicial Reports 356.