Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules That Intense Courtroom Disputes Are Insufficient For Case Transfer

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently issued a significant observation regarding the transfer of cases based on heated courtroom exchanges between advocates and judges. The Court's stance was highlighted in the case of [ Raj Bala and another versus Rishabh Birla and others ]. Justice Vikram Aggarwal presided over the matter and dismissed a revision petition that sought the transfer of a civil suit from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, to another court.

In its ruling, the High Court emphasized that verbal disagreements and passionate exchanges between advocates and judges, though occasionally occurring, should not alone lead to the apprehension that justice might be compromised in a specific court. The Court underlined that it is the responsibility of both the presiding officers and advocates to maintain a certain level of decorum during proceedings. 

Justice Aggarwal stated, "It has to be kept in mind that during the course of arguments, at times, though not called for, temperatures do run high. However, this alone would not be reason enough for an apprehension to crop up in the minds of any of the parties that they would not get justice from the Court concerned." He also mentioned that judges should ensure their conduct does not contribute to such apprehensions.

The dispute that led to this observation originated during arguments over an application to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 Of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Although a defendant's counsel reportedly became agitated during these proceedings, Justice Aggarwal noted that maintaining composure is crucial for all parties involved. 

The transfer petition, which had initially been turned down by a district court, was further reviewed by the High Court. The Court ultimately agreed with the district court's decision and opined that there was no breach of legality in the previous ruling. Justice Aggarwal upheld the district court order and rejected the revision petition before him.

Nevertheless, Justice Aggarwal reminded the civil court responsible for the case to ensure an impartial hearing for all sides involved before reaching a final decision on the application to reject the plaint. This case serves as an example of how the judiciary is vigilant about maintaining the integrity of proceedings and promoting a fair trial environment.

Author: Anushka Taraniya 

News Writer, MIT ADT University