Ga Arife @ Arti Sharma vs Gopal Dutt Sharma
2009 Latest Caselaw 1858 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   TR.P.(C.) 19/2009

                                          Reserved on : 29th April, 2009

%                                 Date of Decision :          4th May, 2009


GA ARIFE @ ARTI SHARMA                         ..... Petitioner
                   Through:                    Petitioner in person

                    versus


GOPAL DUTT SHARMA                         ..... Respondent
                 Through:                        None



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No



                             JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

CM No. 6030/2009

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly application stands disposed of.

TR.P.(C.) 19/2009

1. Present transfer petition has been filed under Section 24 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of divorce petition

being HMA No. 426/2007 to the Court of Ms. Aditi Chaudhary,

ADJ on extremely sympathetic grounds and that the said ADJ is

fully aware about the pleadings and documents filed by both the

parties.

2. The impugned order dated 4th April, 2009 shows that it was

at the request of Ms. Aditi Chaudhary, ADJ that the aforesaid case

had been transferred by District Judge vide order dated 18th

March, 2009 to the Court of Mr. Chandra Gupta, ADJ. In my

opinion, since the matter has been transferred by District Judge

at the request of Ms. Aditi Chaudhary, ADJ, it would neither be

fair nor reasonable to re-transfer the matter back to the Court of

Ms. Aditi Chaudhary. I may mention that when this matter was

taken up for hearing, petitioner had argued the matter

incessantly and had not even permitted me to dictate the order

in open court. Consequently, the request of Ms. Aditi Chaudhary,

ADJ to transfer the case cannot be said to be unjustified.

3. Moreover, since I have passed directions for expeditious

disposal of petitioner's HMA petition in CM(M) No. 163/2008, no

further directions are called for in the present petition.

Consequently, present petition is dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J

4th May, 2009 rn