✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 02 Mar 2009

Smt. Ramanpreet Kaur v. Kamaldeep Singh

TA No. 253 of 2008MAHESH GROVER

Case at a glance

Judgment

Smt. Ramanpreet Kaur ....Applicant VERSUS Kamaldeep Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Bipin Sharma, Advocate for the applicant Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This is an application under Section 24 CPC for transfer of proceedings in petition titled as 'Kamaldeep versus Ramanpreet' filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Learned counsel for the respodent states that he has no objection if the proceedings in case titled as 'Kamaldeep versus Ramanpreet' filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 are transferred from Amritsar to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala as in any event the parties have settled the matter. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and also keeping in view the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'Sumita Singh versus Kumar Sanjay and another' AIR 2002 SC 396, I am of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to succeed. TA No. 253 of 2008 2 Accordingly, the proceedings in the case titled as 'Kamaldeep versus Ramanpreet' filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar are transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. District & Sessions Judge, Patiala shall entrust the case to a Court of competent jurisdiction after receipt of the case on transfer, which shall issue notice to the parties for appearance. March 2, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) Judge

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 02 Mar 2009. The bench was MAHESH GROVER.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. TA No. 253 of 2008). ← Search more judgments