Dismissed¶¶43

Jorawar Singh Bhinder v. Ats Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2025TA/755/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TA-755-2023 TA-752-2023 Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh Archana Puri 09.04.2025 transfer application dismissed Jorawar Singh Bhinder ATS Infrabuild Puleen Kaur Bhinder CS/373/2018 CMA/20/2019 SAS Nagar Ludhiana Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC matrimonial dispute settlement Major Angad Singh Brar apprehension danger vague convenience property SAS Nagar ex parte respondent No.1 N.D.S. Mann Puran Singh Hundal senior advocate

What did the court decide?

The assertions with regard to apprehending danger at the instance of Major Angad Singh Brar (close relative of respondents No.2 and 3) are quite vague. ¶¶37

Jorawar Singh Bhinder Vs Ats Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil suit CS/373/2018 ('Jorawar Singh Bhinder Vs. ATS Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and others'), pending at SAS Nagar, should be transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana (TA-755-2023). +2 more

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

The assertions with regard to apprehending danger at the instance of Major Angad Singh Brar (close relative of respondents No.2 and 3) are quite vague.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

Although paragraph No.18 of the applications mentions the applicant's car having been chased by a jeep of military colour with 4-5 occupants in Army uniform, no specific name of any person was given and there is nothing on record about any action initiated by the applicant qua the chasing; hence this assertion is also quite vague.ratio¶¶37
In the given circumstances, there is no merit in the submissions regarding apprehension of danger at the instance of respondent No.2 and her family members.ratio¶¶38
As regards convenience, respondent No.2 is not interested for transfer of the case at Ludhiana, and the property in question is situated within the jurisdiction of SAS Nagar.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana HC (Chandigarh) — Archana Puri, J. (Oral), 09.04.2025 — Dismisses transfer applications TA-755-2023 and TA-752-2023 filed by Jorawar Singh Bhinder seeking transfer from SAS Nagar to Ludhiana of (i) civil suit CS/373/2018 'Jorawar Singh Bhinder Vs. ATS Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and others' and (ii) civil appeal CMA/20/2019 'Dr. Puleen Kaur and another Vs. Jorawar Singh Bhinder and another', the latter an offshoot of the suit being miscellaneous appeal qua application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Grounds rejected: (a) convenience — respondent No.2 (applicant's wife, Puleen Kaur Bhinder) not interested in transfer to Ludhiana and the property in question lies within SAS Nagar jurisdiction, so solely on convenience no case for transfer; (b) apprehension of danger at the instance of respondent No.2 and her family, more particularly Major Angad Singh Brar — assertions held vague; the reported chasing of the applicant's car by a jeep of military colour with 4-5 occupants in Army uniform named no specific person and no action initiated by the applicant was on record. During pendency, settlement was reached between the applicant and respondent No.2 vis-a-vis the litigation detailed in paragraph No.13 of the applications. Respondent No.1 (ATS Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.) proceeded ex parte despite service; respondents No.2 and 3 appeared through Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Advocate; applicant represented by Mr. Puran Singh Hundal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate.

¶1

¶2

TA-755-2023 AND TA-752-2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.103

¶5

Date of Decision: 09.04.2025

¶6

1. TA-755-2023

¶7

JORAWAR SINGH BHINDER

¶8

....Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

ATS INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

2. TA-752-2023

¶13

JORAWAR SINGH BHINDER

¶14

....Applicant

¶15

Versus

¶16

ATS INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

¶17

.....Respondents

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶19

Present:Mr. Puran Singh Hundal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate for the applicant (in both the cases).

¶20

None for respondent No.1 (in both the cases).

¶21

Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 (in both the cases).

¶22

¶23

Sonu 2025.04.09 14:13 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶24

¶25

TA-755-2023 AND TA-752-2023

¶26

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶27

These are two transfer applications filed by Jorawar Singh Bhinder-applicant, for seeking transfer of the litigation, pending between the parties to the lis.

¶28

TA-755-2023 has been filed by the applicant for seeking transfer of the civil suit i.e. CS/373/2018 titled ‘Jorawar Singh Bhinder Vs. ATS Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and others’.

¶29

TA-752-2023 has been filed by the applicant for seeking transfer of the civil appeal i.e. CMA/20/2019, titled ‘Dr. Puleen Kaur and another Vs. Jorawar Singh Bhinder and another’ .

¶30

Both the aforesaid cases are pending in the Courts at SAS Nagar and the applicant is seeking transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

¶31

In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent No.1 in the respective applications, did not make appearance, despite service. As such, he is proceeded against ex parte . However, respondents No.2 and 3 in both the applications, have made appearance through counsel and filed replies in the respective applications.

¶32

The counsel for the parties heard.

¶33

From the contents of both the transfer applications and also considering the replies filed, it is evident that there is a matrimonial dispute between the applicant-Jorawar Singh Bhinder and his wife, namely, Puleen Kaur Bhinder, who is respondent No.2 in both the applications. Respondent No.3 is the mother-in-law of the applicant. Suffice to consider that, on account of the matrimonial dispute, there were various rounds of litigation Sonu between the applicant and his wife, the detail whereof has been given in 2025.04.09 14:13 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶34

¶35

TA-755-2023 AND TA-752-2023

¶36

paragraph No.13 of both the applications. However, during the pendency of the transfer applications, it was brought to the notice of the Court that settlement has been reached between the applicant and respondent No.2, visa-vis the litigation, as detailed in paragraph No.13 of the respective applications.

¶37

Considering the aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that the transfer relates to the civil suit and the civil appeal, which is also an offshoot of the civil suit, being miscellaneous appeal qua the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The applicant is seeking transfer of the said cases, on account of the convenience of the applicant, as well as respondents No.2 and 3, who are residents of Ludhiana City. Besides the same, also it is pertinent to mention that, even another ground taken by the applicant relates to the apprehension in his mind, with regard to the harm to be caused to him, at the instance of respondent No.2 and her family members, more particularly, Major Angad Singh Brar, who is close relative of respondents No.2 and 3. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the assertions with regard to apprehending danger, at the instance of Major Angad Singh Brar, are quite vague. Even though, in paragraph No.18 of the applications, there is a mention made about the car of the applicant, having chased by a jeep of military colour with 4-5 occupants in Army uniform, but no specific name of the person has been given. If it had so happened, then also, there is nothing coming on record, about any action initiated at the instance of the applicant, qua chasing of his car by some unknown persons. As such, this assertion is also quite vague.

¶38

In the given circumstances, there is no merit in the submissions, Sonu with regard to apprehension of danger, at the instance of respondent No.2 2025.04.09 14:13 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶39

¶40

TA-755-2023 AND TA-752-2023

¶41

and her family members. So far as convenience is concerned, respondent No.2 is not interested for transfer of the case at Ludhiana. The property in question is also situated within the jurisdiction of SAS Nagar. That being so, solely on account of the convenience, as projected by the applicant, no case is made out for transfer of the civil suit, as well as the civil appeal.

¶42

Hence, the transfer applications are bereft of merits and as such,

¶43

are hereby dismissed.

¶44

(ARCHANA PURI) 09.04.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶45

Sonu 2025.04.09 14:13 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Jorawar Singh Bhinder v. Ats Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jorawar Singh Bhinder v. Ats Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Vs Kartik Mittal and Others

Mohd. Yaqoob Vs Mohd. Munir and Ors.

Shallu Rani Alias Shallu Vs Goldy

Komal Verma Vs Sham Sunder

Tejinder Pal Kaur Vs Prabhjot Singh

Randeep Singh Vs Komal