* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 21.03.2012.
+ TR.P.(C.) 24/2012 & CM Nos.5169-70/2012
DARGAH PANCH PEER THR ABDUL MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M. Mohsin Israily, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Dr. Kumar Jwala, Adv. for R-1,
R-2 & R-6
Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for R-3.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for
R-4.
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Mirza Amir Baig, Adv. for
R-7 & R-8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 05.03.2012 wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking a transfer of his petition pending in the Court of Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned ADJ had been dismissed. The contention of the petitioner before this Court today is reiterated that he has no faith left in that Court and he seeks a TRP (C)No.24/2012 Page 1 of 4 transfer from that Court to some other Court.
2 Record shows that the present suit is a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff against the Union of India; contention is that there is a 'dargah' in the aforenoted suit premises and the sale of this property vide a said deed in favour of CSOI (Civil Services Officers Institute) is an invalid sale; that sale deed be set aside. Attention has been drawn to the order dated 13.10.2011 passed in the aforenoted proceedings. The same counsel who is addressing today before this Court was the counsel before the trial Court. The plaintiff had filed an application seeking a recall of the order dated 08.07.2010 through the aforenoted counsel; record of the trial Court shows that an earlier application seeking recall of the same order dated 08.07.2010 had been filed by the earlier counsel Mr. M.S. Khan; the trial Court had noted this fact that since an earlier application was already on record seeking the same prayer, the second application is not maintainable; it was rightly dismissed. However, to end the controversy, the trial Court had thereafter directed the Government counsel to furnish copies of these applications to the plaintiff and the matter had been listed for hearing on the said applications seeking a recall of the order dated 08.07.2010. Next date TRP (C)No.24/2012 Page 2 of 4 fixed was 14.12.2011. This order has also been highlighted by counsel for the petitioner. His submission is that this order of the trial Court smacks of a prejudice against him. Vide this order dated 14.12.2011, the application filed by the plaintiff seeking a recall of the order dated 08.07.2010 had been dismissed; the Court had noted the offending remarks made against the Presiding Officer which as noted in terms of the impugned order were derogatory; even today before this Court on a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the volume of his voice is high and he is hardly in a mood to reiterate from the stand noted in the order of the trial Court dated 14.12.2011. The petitioner has been informed that it is not for him to pick and chose the Court to which he wishes to make his submissions; however, he continues to reiterate that he is not happy with the proceedings being conducted by the ADJ Mr. Pankaj Gupta.
3 The respondents have also put in an appearance. Their submission is that the plaintiff is making all efforts to delay the proceedings as the case is in progress but he does not wish the matter to attain a finality as he is sitting in this dargah in view of certain interim orders being enjoyed by him; he does not wish to vacate the suit property which may TRP (C)No.24/2012 Page 3 of 4 be the ultimate result of the suit.
4 Record shows that Mr. Mohd. Israily has filed his vakalatnama on 13.10.2011 when admittedly the vakalatnama of earlier counsel Mr. M.S. Khan was already there and the presence of Mr. M.S.Khan has also been noted in the order dated 13.10.2011. There is nothing to substantiate the submission of the plaintiff that the plaintiff wished wanted to withdraw the vakalatnama of the earlier counsel and this submission has not been recorded. Even in the subsequent order dated 14.12.2011 vide which his application seeking a recall of the order dated 08.07.2010 had been dismissed does not show that the Presiding Officer was in any manner prejudiced or influenced. Be that as it may, in this background, the impugned order declining to transfer the suit proceeding to another Court in no manner suffers from any infirmity. This petition is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and wastage of its precious time; it is dismissed with costs of `10,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 21, 2012 A TRP (C)No.24/2012 Page 4 of 4