IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:26.02.2026 Ajmer Lal …..Pe--oner Vs.

Jaswinder Singh .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner–applicant assailing the order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the application seeking transfer of three pending rent proceedings from the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana to another Court of competent jurisdiction has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner had sought transfer of multiple proceedings pending between the parties primarily on the allegation that the respondent had proclaimed familiarity with the Presiding Officer and had allegedly extended threats demanding money, leading to an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that justice would not be impartially administered.

3. The respondent contested the transfer application, denying all allegations and asserting that the application was filed only to delay the proceedings. Comments of the learned Presiding Officer were also called for, wherein the allegations were categorically denied and it was clarified that the proceedings were being conducted strictly in accordance with law. 4. Upon consideration of the material placed before it, the learned District Judge concluded that the allegations levelled by the petitioner were vague, unsubstantiated, and unsupported by any material evidence. It was further observed that adverse orders passed during the course of proceedings cannot, by themselves, constitute a ground for transfer and that a litigant cannot claim transfer of a case merely on subjective apprehension.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated before this Court that the apprehension of bias was genuine and that, in the interest of justice, the ma:er ought to have been transferred.

6. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. It is well se:led that transfer of a case is an exception and not the rule. The power of transfer is to be exercised sparingly and only when there exists a reasonable and substantiated apprehension that justice would not be done. Mere conjectures, bald allegations, or dissatisfaction with judicial orders do not constitute a valid ground for transfer.

8. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to place any cogent material on record to substantiate the allegation of bias or improper conduct on the part of the Presiding Officer. The comments submi:ed by the learned Presiding Officer specifically deny the allegations, and no circumstance has been demonstrated to discredit the fairness of the proceedings.

9. It is equally se:led that adverse or unfavourable orders passed during the course of litigation cannot be treated as indicative of bias. The appropriate remedy against such orders lies in appeal or revision against those orders themselves and not by seeking transfer of the proceedings.

10. The learned District Judge has examined the ma:er in detail and recorded well-reasoned findings that the application was founded upon vague apprehensions and lacked substantive material. The said findings are neither perverse nor suffer from jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference.

11. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to correcting jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity. Re-appreciation of factual satisfaction recorded by the competent authority while dealing with a transfer request is impermissible unless the order is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or legally unsustainable, which is not the case here.

12. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE February 26, 2026 Neetika Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No