The status of a litigant as a practising advocate, standing alone, does not constitute a valid ground for the transfer of a case under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure; specific and credible material proving a bias or apprehension of an unfair trial remains necessary.

*****

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

The applicant-Narinder Kumar Jain has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the civil suit i.e. i.e. CS/465/2017, titled ‘Narinder Kumar Jain Vs. Satish Kumar Jain and others’, filed at his instance. The said suit is pending in the Courts at Faridkot and the applicant seeks transfer of the same to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar, Kapurthala, Hoshiarpur, Amritsar, Tarn Taran etc.

In pursuance of notice issued, contesting respondent No.1 made appearance through counsel and filed reply. Even, rejoinder was filed. However, none had made appearance on behalf of contesting respondents No.2 to 6 and as such, they were proceeded against ex parte.

Counsel for the parties heard.

At the very outset, it is submitted by the counsel that the applicant, as well as respondent No.1 are the sons of Munshi Ram Jain, whereas, respondent No.2 is daughter of said Munshi Ram Jain. One of the sons of Munshi Ram Jain, namely, Rajinder Kumar Jain, had since expired. Respondents No.7 to 12 are legal heirs of Rajinder Kumar Jain, who were proceeded against ex parte and therefore, they have been impleaded in the present application as proforma respondents. Respondent No.6 is the son of the applicant. Respondents No.3 to 5 are the persons, to whom the share of the property in question has been sold by respondents No.7 to 12, being legal heirs of Rajinder Kumar Jain. However, in view of the Wills of Munshi Ram Jain and Rattan Devi, parents of the applicant, the property sold, is more than the share of the aforesaid respondents.

Further, it is averred that the applicant had filed the civil suit for partition of two joint properties at Faridkot. One civil suit i.e. CS/465/2017, titled ‘Narinder Kumar Jain Vs. Satish Kumar Jain and others’, has been filed, qua the property registered in the name of Munshi Ram Jain, father of the applicant, who died intestate. In the said suit, respondents No.1 to 12 have been impleaded as party.

Also, counsel submits that, at the time of filing of the transfer application, Satish Kumar Jain-respondent No.1, was a practising Advocate, who had since died, during the pendency of the transfer application. The said Satish Kumar Jain, along with his brother, namely, Rajinder Kumar Jain, had prepared forged Will of the parents of the parties to the lis and had produced the same, along with the forged affidavit of the applicant, vis-a-vis, acceptance of the Wills.

Counsel submits that the applicant seeks transfer of CS/465/2017, as Satish Kumar Jain, during his lifetime, was Advocate by profession in the Bar of District Faridkot and he was also practising in the nearby places, like Moga, Sri Muktsar Sahib and various other District Courts, in the region of Malwa, along with his son-Peush Jain, who was practising with him. His another son-Abhinav Jain, was though, given by the applicant, in adoption to his brother-Rajinder Kumar Jain, but however, he is also practising in Punjab and Haryana High Court and District Courts of Chandigarh, Mohali, Patiala and other nearby districts.

Counsel also submits that the applicant had filed another civil suit i.e. CS/466/2017, titled ‘Narinder Kumar Jain Vs. Satish Kumar Jain’ and the same is also pending in the Courts at Faridkot.

Furthermore, the counsel submits that Satish Kumar Jain and Peush Jain, were daily appearing as counsel in various other cases, before the same Court, in which the suit of the applicant is pending and they had challenged the applicant that they had the power to influence any Court, in the Malwa region and in any circumstance, the applicant will not be able to get any justice, order or judgment, against them. Therefore, the only option left is to withdraw the suits against them. Due to the influence of respondent No.1, as an Advocate, no other Advocate of the area is willing to appear in the suit, on behalf of the applicant, as respondent No.1 had been the past President of District Court Bar Association, Fari