AMARJIT Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought transfer of civil suit No. 324 of 2003 titled Amarjit vs. Mangal Singh, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, to any other court of competent jurisdiction outside District Sirsa. It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction but the defendants, who are practicing Advocates, are delaying the decision of the suit on one pretext or the other.

(2.) Therefore, to expedite the trial of the suit and to get a fair decision, the petitioner has sought transfer of the suit to any court outside Sirsa. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that respondent No.1 has since died who was a prominent Advocate at Sirsa but after his death, his son has joined the profession recently. He has also relied upon decisions of this Court in D.A.V.College, Hoshiarpur Society (Regd.) and another vs. D.M. Sharma and others, 2005(1) Simla Law Journal, 83, and Madan Lal vs. Subhash and others, Civil Misc.No. 6883-CII of 1998 decided on 23.12.1998. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the conduct of proceedings before the court at Sirsa shows that the defendants are abusing the process of law to their advantage and delaying the decision of the suit. It will, therefore, be in the interest of justice if the civil suit filed by the petitioner is transferred to any other Court outside the normal place of practice of the defendants. The decisions referred to by learned counsel for the defendants are in the facts of its own case. In Madan Lal's case (supra), it was a case where the wife of an Advocate was a party to the suit. In D.M. Sharma's case (supra), it was found that the mere fact that the respondent is an Advocate will not be a sufficient ground for seeking transfer of the proceedings.

(3.) In the present case, the petitioner has sought transfer of the civil suit in view of conduct of the proceedings. It was pointed out that the respondents have filed in the suit an application under sections 30, 32 and Order 16 Rules 10 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Code"). Subsequently, another application was filed on 9.3.2004 and still later another application on 10.01.2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code and yet another application on 24.1.2005 for treating preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit.