Chandigarh, Sept. 7 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has asserted that the judicial functioning cannot be permitted to be stone-walled, either by the ordinary litigants or Bar members, in a case where the allegations were that not even a single lawyer was ready to appear before the court as opposite party was the Bar body. "The process of judicial delivery system must run its even course, unbridled by any litigant, be it a private person or an advocate or bunch of advocates or the advocates together, being members of District Bar Association," the bench of justice Archana Puri observed while rejecting plea from a contractor involved in construction of lawyers' chambers in Sector-43 district courts in Chandigarh. The petition was from M/s The Dream Group, who was awarded work of construction of 440 lawyers' chambers in the district courts in Sector 43 in December 2010. Later on, dispute arose between the contractor and the Bar body and an arbitrator was appointed, who passed his order in November 2020. It was against this award that proceedings were underway at the district courts in Chandigarh and the petitioner firm had approached high court seeking transfer of the proceedings either to Panchkula or Mohali district courts. The firm had submitted that since District Bar Association is a party, the pressure built up during the hearing is not very healthy one. "No lawyer is ready to appear, on behalf of the applicant and not just this, the applicant is also facing threat, while appearing in the said case," the firm had told high court seeking transfer of the proceedings to either Mohali or Panchkula. The Bar body on the other hand had submitted that just because rival party is a Bar association does not ipso facto, make out a ground for the transfer of the case. The court made it clear that there is no inhibition, on the part of the courts to accept the transfer application, wherein, the rival litigant is an advocate, but there ought to be circumstances, spelt out about the advocate/litigant to be over-reaching or throwing his weight to such an extent, which causes bias/influence upon the court, to such an extent, which hampers the 'fair trial' or 'conducting' of the judicial proceedings. Being advocate, ipso facto, is not a ground for transfer of the case, it added. The court made it clear that body of advocates may have strength as a body to take up grievance of the advocates but this will not ipso facto, raise the apprehension of the presiding officer towing down to the will of the Bar. The court asserted that apprehension of the party should be supported by a genuine circumstances, from which, an impression can be gathered by the court that it is reasonable to transfer the proceedings. "..mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done, do not make out any case for transfer of the case," it asserted. "This wide apprehension .. also impliedly cast aspersions upon the functioning of the judicial system, while presuming about the presiding officer to be towing under the pressure of the Bar association. Such impression should never be gathered as the presiding officer is to decide the pending litigation of the parties to these applications, as one case, among the number of cases, pending in his court," the court clarified adding that there cannot be any onslaught, at the instance of any litigant by raising apprehensions, based on conjectures and mystic maybes. "There has to be some substance in the apprehension so raised, which is missing in the present case," the high court bench said while dismissing the plea....