Dismissed

Seema Garg v. Rajiv Garg

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2013TA/504/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed an application for transfer of a civil suit for damages from Ropar to Patiala. The court found no merit, noting the inconvenience of travel was insufficient, the nature of evidence was local to Ropar, and civil procedure did not mandate the personal presence of the petitioner at every hearing.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the suit from Ropar to Patiala was refused and the application was dismissed.

Seema Garg Vs Rajiv Garg — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2014.01.10 10:37I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA No.504 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.504 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2013

¶5

Seema Garg

¶6

.............Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Rajiv Garg & Anr.

¶9

.............Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶13

Petitioner is seeking the transfer of Civil Suit No.499 of 2012 for damages titled as “Rajiv Garg Vs. Seema and Anr.” pending before the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ropar to a court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala.

¶14

It is stated that the petitioner was married to Atul Garg, brother of respondent No.1 on 30.01.2005. The parties cohabited as husband and wife in the matrimonial home at Ropar. Out of this wedlock, one daughter was born on 25.01.2006. Due to matrimonial dispute, petitioner-wife along with her minor daughter was deserted out of her matrimonial home on 09.01.2001 and since May, 2011 she along with minor daughter is stated to be residing at her parental home in Patiala.

¶15

It is further submitted that the petitioner-wife has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and also lodged an FIR under Section 406/498-A IPC at Patiala.

¶16

It is further submitted that respondent No.1 Rajiv Garg (brother-in-law of petitioner) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2 lacs as damages along with interest @ 18% per annum against the petitioner as

¶17

TA No.504 of 2013 (O&M) #2#

¶18

well as her father for filing a complaint with the police, which on investigation was found to be false. It is further stated that by filing the said false complaint petitioner has caused damage to the reputation of respondent No.1 before the society and his family members and therefore, the suit for damages.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife states that it is extremely inconvenient for the petitioner to travel from Patiala to Ropar to defend herself in the pending suit since she is a poor lady with no source of income to maintain herself and further dependent on her old and ailing parents.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that merely slight inconvenience would not constitute sufficient basis for transferring the suit, whose entire evidence relates to happening at Ropar.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, I do not find any ground to transfer the aforesaid civil suit from Ropar to Patiala. It is not in dispute that the complaint filed by the petitioner Seema Garg, against her husband Atul Garg and the present respondent No.1 was found to be false by the police. It is further not in dispute that the entire evidence has to be led in that suit at the place, where it was filed. It is further not in dispute that the case is of civil nature and the presence of the petitioner is not required on each and every date of hearing, who otherwise would have the able assistance of her counsel.

¶22

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present transfer application, the same is dismissed.

¶23

December 13, 2013 manoj

¶24

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

Seema Garg v. Rajiv Garg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Garg v. Rajiv Garg

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

Shailza Vs Sunny Malhotra

Priyanka Arora Vs Vikram Arora

Priyanka Arora & Ors. Vs Vikram Arora

Shameena Vs Hasandin

Anita Vs Ram Pyari

Pamita Devi Vs Gulshan Kumar