Gurdarshan Singh v. Sohan Singh

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. A.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a petition under Section 17A(1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 praying for transfer of proceedings of Appeal No.RA 78 of 17.11.2007 titled as 'Gurdarshan Singh v. Sohan Singh', pending before the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Moga. The only reason and apprehension expressed by the petitioner in this petition is that in earlier proceedings the same Presiding Officer had determined a controversy inter se between the parties, wherein the question of title was involved, against the petitioner and this has given rise to the apprehension that the present petition which is under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 would also be determined against him as the earlier findings are bound to impress upon the mind of the Presiding Officer. T.A. No. 97 of 2009 -2- I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the averments made in the petition. The Court which is seized of a matter has a sacrosanct duty to answer the controversy before it dispassionately. If the earlier controversy was determined against the petitioner by giving a reasoned order, the same was also liable to be tested before the appellate forum, but simply because a case has been determined against the petitioner would not necessarily give strength to a suspicion that the subsequent proceedings would also meet the same fate. The Court does not carry any bias and is not expected to do so. No doubt, justice should not only be done but also seems to have been done. But the fact remains that if on suspicion or apprehension, the foundations of which are laid in thin air, the cases are transferred, then the well settled norms and practices are disturbed and it tends to shatter the very confidence of a system. To succeed in a petition for transfer on the basis of bias, there has to be a strong element visible, on the basis of which such an apprehension in the mind of the litigant can be said to be sustainable. In the opinion of this Court, the apprehension as expressed by the petitioner is merely a figment of his imagination. In any eventuality, the findings of a civil Court given in the earlier proceedings would naturally be considered by any Court if they are germane to the controversy. No ground. Dismissed.

17.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE