153 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. 1714 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 Aarti Devi and others .......... Petitioners Versus Gurcharan and another .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Ms. Nikita Garg, Advocate for Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shamsher Singh Gill, Advocate, for the respondents. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners, by way of present application/petition, seek transfer of Civil Suit bearing CS/428/2025, titled “Gurcharan Singh and another Versus Aarti Devi” instituted for grant of permanent injunction at the instance of respondents/parents-in-law of petitioner No. 1; from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Payal (Ludhiana) to the Court of competent jurisdiction at SAS Nagar (Mohali). [2] Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for transfer of the above said petition on the following grounds:- (i) that the husband of petitioner No. 1 is no more and she alongwith minor son is residing at Kharar (Mohali); (ii) that petitioner No. 1 is doing a private job on meagre salary and unable to fulfill her day-to-day expenses; (iii) that there is a distance of about 100 kms. between Payal and SAS Nagar (Mohali); (iv) that the civil suit filed by the parents-in-law of petitioner No. 1 has been instituted with the intention of harassing petitioner No. 1. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document T.A. No. 1714 of 2025 (O&M) [2] [3] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. [4] Having heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the petitioners. [5] In the present case, the son of respondents, namely, Ranjit Singh, got married with petitioner No. 1-Aarti Devi on 09.03.2023 and a baby boy was born out of the said wedlock on 06.02.2024. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be not accepted by the respondents. Ranjit Singh unfortunately died on 14.07.2025 and thereafter, the respondents/parents-in-law of petitioner No. 1 instituted a Civil Suit at Payal (Ludhiana) for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from disposing off, alienating, mortgaging, gifting, transferring or exchanging the properties of their minor grandson-Hartaj Singh Somal. Hence, the present application/petition has been preferred at the instance of petitioners. [6] Perusal of the reply reveals that the respondents are old aged persons about 61 years; having no sufficient source of income; and suffering from various ailments. Respondent No. 1-Gurcharan is stated to be suffering from old age disease i.e. fatty liver, whereas respondent No. 2-Baljinder Kaur is suffering from Pain in Back Radiating RT side. The records pertaining to their treatment are also annexed as Annexures R-1 & R-2 respectively. Moreover, in the petition, there is nothing mentioned about the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, who happen to be the mother and brother of petitioner No. 1 that what kind of difficulty they are facing to attend the case at Payal Courts. Further, all the petitioners belong to same family, doing job and having sufficient income. As per reply, petitioner No. 1 is doing job in the DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document T.A. No. 1714 of 2025 (O&M) [3] office of property consultation and is earning good income. [7] In view of the aforementioned facts, in the humble opinion of this Court, the comparative hardship is much more for the respondents, who are aged about 61 years and stated to be suffering from old age diseases. It is going to be very difficult for them to travel from Payal to Mohali. Furthermore, it is a civil suit and personal appearance of petitioners is not required on each and every date of hearing; they can appear through their counsel or even through video-conferencing. [8] It is pertinent to mention that generally the Courts lean towards the convenience of women, while considering the transfer application, relating to the dispute, but however, the same is not a thumb rule. Various other circumstances, spelt out from the material brought on record, on case to case basis need to be taken into consideration and thereupon, the Courts are required to do some balancing while keeping in mind the convenience/inconvenience of both the parties. [9] Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, I find that no case for transfer of the suit is made out. The instant application/petition is dismissed accordingly. [10] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. July 16, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document