Dismissed

M/S Shashi Eggs Store and Anr. v. Kamaljit Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2012CR/2956/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Civil Revision No. 2956 of 2012, dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the dismissal of their transfer application. The revision court held that transfer cannot be based merely on presumptions. The petitioners sought transfer hoping their objections would differ from another tenant whose objections were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for transfer was dismissed as lacking merit; petition for revision against dismissal of transfer application also dismissed.

M/S Shashi Eggs Store and Anr. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2956 of 2012

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2956 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 16.5.2012

¶6

Shashi Eggs Store and another

¶7

..... Petitioners

¶8

¶9

Kamaljit Singh and another

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mr. K. S. Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 25.4.2012 passed by the learned court below whereby in an application filed by the petitioners for transfer of case titled as State Bank of India vs Sandeep Textiles from the court of Shri Rajesh Ahluwalia, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are tenant in a shop at Amritsar. The respondents have purchased the said shop in auction. They have filed objections which are pending before the executing court at Amritsar. Another tenant had also filed objections, which were dismissed by Shri Rajesh Ahluwalia, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. It was submitted that since the learned court has already expressed its opinion, the objections of the petitioners are likely to meet the same fate, hence, these be transferred to some other court.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The decision of each case depends upon its facts. In similar circumstances, consistency has also to be maintained. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the court below will dismiss the objections of the petitioners in the same manner as has been done in the case of other tenant is not tenable. The case cannot be

¶17

Civil Revision No. 2956 of 2012

¶18

(2)

¶19

transferred mere on the basis of presumptions. The learned court below has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners for transfer of the case from the court concerned as it seems that they wanted only to delay the proceedings.

¶20

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

16.5.2012 vs.

¶22

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

M/S Shashi Eggs Store and Anr. v. Kamaljit Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shashi Eggs Store and Anr. v. Kamaljit Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Medu, etc. Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Vs Rajkapoor & Anr.

Sanatan Dharam Sr. Sec. School, Bhiwani Vs F.C. & Principal Secretary, Hry & Ors.

Avinash Kumar Vs Alka Rani

Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs Prem Chand & Ors.

Rai Singh Vs Bhateri & Ors.