PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be ordered 26.11.2020 (Annex. 11) to be allowed and the application so filed by humble petitioner under Section 24 read with Section 151 CPC may kindly to be ordered to be allowed and the impugned order may kindly be quashed and set aside."
(3.) Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in M/s. Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. Vs. Aditya Singhvi and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.108/2021 decided on 03.02.2021), which reads as under: "In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are seeking transfer of the proceedings on the ground that the petitioners suffer from a reasonable apprehension that they might not get justice from the Court in which the suit is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court concerned was filed along with another application under Section 151 CPC and the learned court below without deciding the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, was determined to decide the issue raised in the application under Section 151 CPC as well as jurisdictional application together. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was submitted before the learned court below that such joint disposal of applications shall prejudice the case of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kulwinder Kaur Alias Kulwinder Gurucharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Ors. reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 659, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- "22. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. 23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below have brushed aside the issue of the petitioners in the presence of the petitioners in the Court and thus there is a bona- fide apprehension to the petitioners that there is likelihood of fair trial being not there and therefore, the transfer is necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are not seeking change of place but are merely seeking change of Court. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition. This Court after perusing the record as well as the precedent law is of the opinion that the order-sheets and the record do not point out any such thing which could be said to come within the ambit of a reasonable apprehension of the petitioners of not having a fair trial. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any order on merits it is certainly open for them to challenge the same before the appropriate Court but just because the Court has reflected an adverse order it does not mean that the interest of justice shall not be taken care of. Moreover, the decision of multiple applications together after proper hearing cannot be said to be prejudicial to either of the parties by any stretch of imagination. The present case does not come in the ambit laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwinder Kaur (supra). In view of above, all the present writ petitions, being devoid of any force, are hereby dismissed. Stay petitions also stand dismissed accordingly." ;