TA-1152-2024 (O&M) 102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sheela Devi Gurlabh Singh CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mrs. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep, Advocate for Ms, Manvi Singla, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-7541-CII-2026 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the document Annexure P Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and document is taken on record as Annexure P TA-1152-2024 Prayer in this petition is for transfer o No.CS/4/2023 titled as “Gurlabh Singh Vs. Sheela @ Arpita” filed by the respondent, who is father Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gulha jurisdiction at Kaithal 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- TA Date of Decision : 21.05.2026 VERSUS CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mrs. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep, Advocate for Ms, Manvi Singla, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2026 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the document Annexure P-7. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and document is taken on record as Annexure P-7. Prayer in this petition is for transfer o No.CS/4/2023 titled as “Gurlabh Singh Vs. Sheela @ Arpita” filed by the respondent, who is father-in-law of the petitioner, which is pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gulha Kaithal. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-1152-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mrs. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms, Manvi Singla, Advocate for the respondent. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and document is Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the civil suit bearing case No.CS/4/2023 titled as “Gurlabh Singh Vs. Sheela @ Arpita” filed by the law of the petitioner, which is pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gulha to Court of competen This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and document is f the civil suit bearing case No.CS/4/2023 titled as “Gurlabh Singh Vs. Sheela @ Arpita” filed by the law of the petitioner, which is pending before the to Court of competent TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1152-2024 (O&M) 2. It is, above-mentioned civil suit filed by the respondent/father transferred from Gulha to Kaithal on account of following reasons th i) 07.12.2020; ii) iii) 04.03.2023; iv) against the son of the respondent. The same being: a) FIR No.20 of 2023, registered under Sections 406, 498 Police Station Kaithal (Annexure P b) petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Kaithal; c) a Hindu Marriage Act is also pending at Kaithal; v) vi) from Kaith vii) is fearful that the respondent by using unlawful methods will deprive her from justice. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the afore-mentioned civil suit No. CS/4/2023 be transferred from Guhla to Kaithal. 2024 (O&M) It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mentioned civil suit filed by the respondent/father transferred from Gulha to Kaithal on account of following reasons th the petitioner was married to the son of the respondent on 07.12.2020; no child is born out of their wedlock; iii) petitioner and son of respondent are living separately since 04.03.2023; there are 3 other cases pending at Kaithal filed b against the son of the respondent. The same being: a) FIR No.20 of 2023, registered under Sections 406, 498 Police Station Kaithal (Annexure P b) petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Kaithal; c) a petition filed by husband of the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also pending at Kaithal; the petitioner is unemployed and has no source of income; thus, petitioner is unable to travel the distance of about 50 km from Kaithal to Guhla; vii) The respondent also threatens the petitioner, and the petitioner is fearful that the respondent by using unlawful methods will deprive her from justice. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the ned civil suit No. CS/4/2023 be transferred from Guhla to Kaithal. -2- submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mentioned civil suit filed by the respondent/father-in-law deserves to be transferred from Gulha to Kaithal on account of following reasons that: - the petitioner was married to the son of the respondent on no child is born out of their wedlock; petitioner and son of respondent are living separately since there are 3 other cases pending at Kaithal filed by the petitioner against the son of the respondent. The same being: a) FIR No.20 of 2023, registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Kaithal (Annexure P-2); b) petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Kaithal; petition filed by husband of the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also pending at Kaithal; the petitioner is unemployed and has no source of income; thus, petitioner is unable to travel the distance of about 50 km The respondent also threatens the petitioner, and the petitioner is fearful that the respondent by using unlawful methods will deprive It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the ned civil suit No. CS/4/2023 be transferred from Guhla to Kaithal. submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the law deserves to be the petitioner was married to the son of the respondent on petitioner and son of respondent are living separately since y the petitioner A IPC at b) petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Kaithal; petition filed by husband of the petitioner under Section 13 of the thus, petitioner is unable to travel the distance of about 50 km The respondent also threatens the petitioner, and the petitioner is fearful that the respondent by using unlawful methods will deprive It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1152-2024 (O&M) 3. Though the respondent was proceeded 29.01.2026, however, on the oral request of ld counsel representing the respondent ex-parte order is set aside. 4. Ld counsel for the respondent/father the petitioner and submits that the suit property is situated at Guhla, therefore the civil suit is maintainable only at Guhla and cannot be transferred for want of jurisdiction. It is acco 5. No other argument is raised parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on beh 6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny that the suit property is situated at Guhla. Therefore, it is only the Courts at Guhla that would have jurisdiction. Perusal of the file further reveals that previously, vide order 28.07.2023 (Annexure P3) on the “no objection” of the respondent, the instant civil suit had been transferred from Guhla to Kaithal by the ld. District Judge, Kaithal. However, subsequently, vide order dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure P learned Additional District Judge, Special Court Kaithal, the matter was again transferred back before the Civil Court at Guhla, taking into account the fact that the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Sub Division, Guhla. The case file further reveals that the petitioner had previously also filed a transfer petition bearing No. TA with liberty to file afresh with better particulars vide order dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the present petition is misconceived. judgment passed by a co 2024 (O&M) Though the respondent was proceeded 29.01.2026, however, on the oral request of ld counsel representing the respondent order is set aside. Ld counsel for the respondent/father the petitioner and submits that the suit property is situated at Guhla, therefore the civil suit is maintainable only at Guhla and cannot be transferred for want of jurisdiction. It is accordingly prayed that present transfer petition be dismissed. No other argument is raised on parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny that the suit property is situated at Guhla. Therefore, it is only the Courts at Guhla that would have jurisdiction. Perusal of the file further reveals that previously, vide order 28.07.2023 (Annexure P3) on the “no objection” of the respondent, the instant civil suit had been transferred from Guhla to Kaithal by the ld. District Judge, Kaithal. However, subsequently, vide order dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure P earned Additional District Judge, Special Court Kaithal, the matter was again transferred back before the Civil Court at Guhla, taking into account the fact that the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Sub Division, case file further reveals that the petitioner had previously also filed a transfer petition bearing No. TA-1118-2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with better particulars vide order dated 12.09.2024 6) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Clearly therefore, the present petition is misconceived. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench in Usman @ Usman Khan Vs. Sunder -3- Though the respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.01.2026, however, on the oral request of ld counsel representing the respondent Ld counsel for the respondent/father-in-law opposes submissions of the petitioner and submits that the suit property is situated at Guhla, therefore the civil suit is maintainable only at Guhla and cannot be transferred for want of rdingly prayed that present transfer petition be dismissed. behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no alf of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny that the suit property is situated at Guhla. Therefore, it is only the Courts at Guhla that would have jurisdiction. Perusal of the file further reveals that previously, vide order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P3) on the “no objection” of the respondent, the instant civil suit had been transferred from Guhla to Kaithal by the ld. District Judge, Kaithal. However, subsequently, vide order dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the earned Additional District Judge, Special Court Kaithal, the matter was again transferred back before the Civil Court at Guhla, taking into account the fact that the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Sub Division, case file further reveals that the petitioner had previously also filed a 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with better particulars vide order dated 12.09.2024 Coordinate Bench of this Court. Clearly therefore, In this regard reference can be made to the Usman @ Usman Khan Vs. Sunder vide order dated 29.01.2026, however, on the oral request of ld counsel representing the respondent law opposes submissions of the petitioner and submits that the suit property is situated at Guhla, therefore the civil suit is maintainable only at Guhla and cannot be transferred for want of behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny that the suit property is situated at Guhla. Therefore, it is only the Courts at Guhla that would have dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P3) on the “no objection” of the respondent, the instant civil suit had been transferred from Guhla to Kaithal by the ld. District Judge, Kaithal. 4) passed by the earned Additional District Judge, Special Court Kaithal, the matter was again transferred back before the Civil Court at Guhla, taking into account the fact that the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Sub Division, case file further reveals that the petitioner had previously also filed a 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with better particulars vide order dated 12.09.2024 Coordinate Bench of this Court. Clearly therefore, In this regard reference can be made to the Usman @ Usman Khan Vs. Sunder TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1152-2024 (O&M) Singh 205 NCPHHC 100482, in suits related to immovable property must adhere to section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates filing the suit in the Court within the local limits of where the property is situa 7. Even otherwise, from the facts as noticed above, it appear petitioner has no onerous responsibility that would impede her from travelling the short distance of about 44 to 47 km from Kaithal to Guhla. On the other hand, the respondent being her father travelling. 8. Moreover, the above mentioned three petitioner and her husband and are not against the present respondent. 9. It may also be pointed out arrayed as an accused by the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR No. 20 of 2023 registered by the petitioner against her husband and his family, however, upon investigation, respondent had been exonerated. Subsequently, p an application under section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning of the present respondent, along with other relatives of the respondent; which has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kaithal vide order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-7). 10. This Court is well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have declined ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by 2024 (O&M) Singh 205 NCPHHC 100482, wherein it has been held that territorial jurisdiction in suits related to immovable property must adhere to section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates filing the suit in the Court within the local limits of where the property is situated. Even otherwise, from the facts as noticed above, it appear petitioner has no onerous responsibility that would impede her from travelling the short distance of about 44 to 47 km from Kaithal to Guhla. On the other hand, the eing her father-in-law is an aged person, and would have difficulty in Moreover, the above mentioned three petitioner and her husband and are not against the present respondent. It may also be pointed out that although the respondent had been arrayed as an accused by the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR No. 20 of 2023 registered by the petitioner against her husband and his family, however, upon investigation, respondent had been exonerated. Subsequently, p an application under section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning of the present respondent, along with other relatives of the respondent; which has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kaithal vide order dated 12.06.2025 7). This Court is well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this declined relief to the wife. One such case is: ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by -4- wherein it has been held that territorial jurisdiction in suits related to immovable property must adhere to section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates filing the suit in the Court within the local Even otherwise, from the facts as noticed above, it appears that the petitioner has no onerous responsibility that would impede her from travelling the short distance of about 44 to 47 km from Kaithal to Guhla. On the other hand, the law is an aged person, and would have difficulty in Moreover, the above mentioned three pending cases are between the petitioner and her husband and are not against the present respondent. that although the respondent had been arrayed as an accused by the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR No. 20 of 2023 registered by the petitioner against her husband and his family, however, upon investigation, respondent had been exonerated. Subsequently, petitioner had moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning of the present respondent, along with other relatives of the respondent; which has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kaithal vide order dated 12.06.2025 This Court is well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this relief to the wife. One such case is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by wherein it has been held that territorial jurisdiction in suits related to immovable property must adhere to section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates filing the suit in the Court within the local that the petitioner has no onerous responsibility that would impede her from travelling the short distance of about 44 to 47 km from Kaithal to Guhla. On the other hand, the law is an aged person, and would have difficulty in cases are between the that although the respondent had been arrayed as an accused by the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR No. 20 of 2023 registered by the petitioner against her husband and his family, however, upon etitioner had moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning of the present respondent, along with other relatives of the respondent; which has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kaithal vide order dated 12.06.2025 This Court is well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1152-2024 (O&M) the husband. Reference circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: Singh’; and TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manish 11. Accordingly, in view of the factual and legal position noted above, and finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. May 21, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) the husband. Reference may also be made to two cases where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manish Accordingly, in view of the factual and legal position noted above, and finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- may also be made to two cases where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav’. Accordingly, in view of the factual and legal position noted above, and finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE may also be made to two cases where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Accordingly, in view of the factual and legal position noted above, TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document