Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Transfer Pleas, Flags Applicant’s Misuse of Litigation in Family Property Disputes
Case Name: Ram Kumar @ Kallu vs. Raghu Nandan @ Ruggi & Teeka Ram @ Tekchand vs. Raghu Nandan @ Ruggi & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 01.09.2025
Citation: TA Nos. 356 & 357 of 2023.
Bench: Justice Archana Puri.
Held: The High Court dismissed two transfer applications seeking to move pending civil suits (one for permanent injunction and another for recovery of ₹50,000) from Hodal, District Palwal, to Gurugram. The Court found that the applicants—brothers engaged in multiple disputes with their sibling—failed to establish any genuine or reasonable apprehension of bias or lack of fair trial at Palwal. Instead, the Court noted the misuse of litigation by applicant Teeka Ram, who falsely described himself as “illiterate” despite being an Advocate, and had a long history of filing numerous vexatious cases against his family and authorities.
Summary: The applicants Ram Kumar and Teeka Ram sought transfer of civil cases filed by their brother Raghu Nandan, alleging collusion between him, local authorities, and the trial court. They cited security threats, biased adjournments, and past orders transferring related cases to Gurugram. They claimed that justice could not be expected at Hodal.
The respondent opposed, highlighting that Teeka Ram, though a retired Air Force officer and an Advocate, deliberately misrepresented himself as illiterate. He was also representing his brother Ram Kumar in these transfer applications. The respondent produced documents (Annexures R-1 to R-5) showing that Teeka Ram had filed over 150 cases, including many false and vexatious ones, had faced proceedings under Section 182 CrPC, and had even been held liable for contempt before tendering an apology.
The Court, analyzing Section 24 CPC, reiterated that transfer powers must be exercised cautiously, only when reasonable apprehension of unfair trial exists. While prior transfer orders (in 2016 and 2022) were noted, those did not consider the applicant’s conduct now on record. Given that the present suits were simple civil matters (recovery and injunction), did not require constant personal presence, and considering the manageable distance of 100 km between Palwal and Gurugram, no ground for transfer was made out.
Decision: Both transfer applications were dismissed. The Court emphasized that false claims, misuse of profession, and vexatious litigation cannot form the basis for transfer. It held that wide allegations of bias without supporting material cannot justify shifting cases, and that civil suits should proceed at Hodal.