##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

115 TA-1547-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: March 24, 2026

Vidya Devi and another ...Applicants

Versus

Anita Devi and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present: Mr.Anil Shukla, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr.Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr.Ramnish Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2.

None for the respondent.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

The applicants have filed the present application for seeking

transfer of the civil suit No.675 of 2020, titled ‘Anita Devi vs. Surender Kumar and others’, pending before the trial Court, Narnaul, and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurugram or

any other District Court, situated nearby.

In pursuance of the notice issued, respondents No.1 and 2 made

appearance through respective counsel and file their respective replies.

Counsel for the parties heard.

It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that husband of VINEET GULATI 2026.03.27 13:05

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

TA-1547-2025 -2-

respondent No.1 is an advocate at District Court, Narnaul. However, when the evidence was being recorded, allegedly a quarrel had taken place between the parties and on this account, the cross-examination, as such, could not be conducted further. In fact, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the counsel representing the applicants before the trial Court had also stated he will not pursue the case on behalf of the applicants and therefore, in the given circumstances, it is difficult for them to pursue the litigation, initiated at the instance of respondents. On this account, a prayer

has been made for transfer of the civil suit.

On the other hand, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, while

making reference to their respective replies, denied the allegations, as such, raised in the application. Rather, it is submitted that no case is made out for the acceptance of the transfer application. In fact, it is the only ground raised to delay the decision of the civil suit. Furthermore, it is also submitted by the counsel that the said civil suit is pending in the Court since the year 2020 and the respondents are pursuing the same, for the last five years and at this stage, it cannot be said that there was any malafide intention, on the part of respondents No.1 and 2 to thwart pursuing of the

litigation by the applicants.

On query by the Court, it is submitted that allegedly a quarrel

had taken place. If it be so, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, to be adjudicated on merits in the case, pending before the trial Court, even if, we start with assumption that any such quarrel had taken place, between the parties, then also, it was required, on the part of counsel for both the parties, to seek intervention of the Presiding Officer. Nothing, as such, is evident

VINEET GULATI 2026.03.27 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

TA-1547-2025 -3-

from the contents of the application that any such intervention was sought. On further query by the Court, it is disclosed by counsel for the applicants that the case was going on smoothly, for the last five years, prior to the date,

when the quarrel had allegedly taken place.

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, as such, no case is

made out to transfer the civil suit outside District Narnaul, as the ground

made out, is not a valid ground to accept the transfer application.

However, in the fitness of the circumstances, an offer was

made to counsel for both the sides that evidence, henceforth, shall be recorded not through the Local Commissioner, but only in the presence of the Presiding Officer, on his dictation, in the open Court. The said offer, as

such, is acceptable to the counsel for the parties.

Hence, it is hereby requested that the Presiding Officer, dealing with

the aforesaid civil suit (Annexure P-1) shall further record the evidence, in open Court