TA No.77 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
TA No.77 of 2017
Date of decision: 29.03.2017
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (ORAL)
Applicant-husband, by way of instant transfer application under
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), seeks transfer of a
divorce petition titled as Preeti Walia Vs. Manoj Kumar filed by respondent-
wife from Patiala to Chandigarh.
Notice of motion was issued and in the meantime, learned Court
below was directed to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed before this
Reply filed on behalf of the respondent-wife in the Court today,
is taken on record and copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It has gone undisputed before this Court that the respondent-wife
is serving in a private concern at Chandigarh. There is no child out of this
marriage. In this view of the undisputed fact situation, it would be in the
1 of 4
08-04-2017 19:56:46 :::
TA No.77 of 2017 -2-
interest of respondent-wife herself, if her divorce petition is ordered to be
transferred from Patiala to Chandigarh, so as to avoid unwarranted harassment
to both the parties.
In view of the abovesaid undisputed fact situation of the case, this
Court feels no hesitation to conclude that it is just and expedient to transfer the
abovesaid petition from Patiala to Chandigarh. It is so said because all the
abovesaid undisputed facts clearly go in favour of the applicant and against
The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of
the Civil Procedure Code is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the
suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever the Courts
are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into
consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata
of the spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life antecedent to
marriage and subsequent thereto and circumstances of either of the parties in
eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are
seeking their sustenance to life.
The view taken by this Court also finds support from a judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs.
Ramakrishna Hegde, 1990 (1) SCC 4. The relevant observations made by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy’s case (supra),
which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under: –
“The question of expediency would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration for
the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is
true that if more than one court has jurisdiction under the Code
2 of 4
08-04-2017 19:56:47 :::
TA No.77 of 2017 -3-
to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose
the Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried
in any particular court convenient to him. The mere convenience
of the parties or any one of them may not be enough for the
exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the
chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not
unknown where a party seeking justice chooses a forum most
inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving that party
of a fair trial. The Parliament has, therefore, invested this Court
with the discretion to transfer the case from one Court to another
if that is considered expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words
of wide amplitude- for the ends of justice- have been advisedly
used to leave the matter to the discretion of the apex court as it is
not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying
the exercise of power. But the paramount consideration must be
to see that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that
objective the transfer of the case is imperative, there should be
no hesitation to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some
inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner’s plea for the
transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone.
Reverting to the facts of the case in hand and respectfully
following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Subramaniam Swamy’s case (supra), it is unhesitatingly held that applicant
is entitled for getting the abovesaid petition transferred from Patiala to
Chandigarh, so as to avoid unwarranted harassment to both the parties. It is
3 of 4
08-04-2017 19:56:47 :::
TA No.77 of 2017 -4-
the settled principle of law that justice is not only to be done but it should also
appear to have been done. Thus, to strike a balance between the parties with a
view to do complete and substantial justice and proceeding on a holistic view
of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and
expedient to transfer the abovesaid petition from Patiala to Chandigarh.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the
considered view that instant transfer application deserves to be accepted and
the same is hereby allowed. Divorce petition titled as Preeti Walia Vs. Manoj
Kumar filed by the respondent-wife is ordered to be transferred from Patiala
Accordingly, the learned District Judge, Patiala is directed to send
complete record of the abovesaid petition to the learned District Judge,
Chandigarh at an early date but in any case within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The learned District Judge, Chandigarh is also directed either to
decide the case himself or assign it to the learned Court of competent
jurisdiction, for an early decision, in accordance with law.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued,
present transfer application stands disposed of, however, with no order as to
[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ]
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
08-04-2017 19:56:47 :::