Delhi High Court
Shri Virender Kumar Garg vs Smt. Manju Garg on 24 September, 2009
Author: S.L.Bhayana
HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
TR.P (C) No. 19/2008
Date of Decision: September 24, 2009
SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR GARG ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C Singhal, Adv
Versus
SMT.MANJU GARG ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Gandhi, Adv
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or
not? Yes
S.L. BHAYANA, J.
The instant petition for transfer under Section 24 of C.P.C has
been filed by the petition for transfer of suit no. 329/2007, titled as
"Smt Manju Garg Vs Shri Virender Kumar Garg" pending before learned
ADJ Court.
2. Petitioner is seeking transfer of suit on the ground that issues in
both the suits are similar and if both the suits are tried together it will
avoid multiplicity and conflicting decisions.
3. That both the suit no. 329/2007 filed before lower court and suit
no. 2066/08 filed in High Court are pertaining to the issues of validity
of gift deeds alleged by petitioner to have been forged and about the
competence of late Shri Jagdish Naryana Garg (Donor) to execute the
gift deeds being member of HUF and if both the issues are adjudicated
by different courts, it would amount to conflict of judgments.
4. On the other hand while opposing present transfer petition ld
counsel of the respondent argued that present petition has been filed
by the petitioner with ulterior motive to delay the disposal of suit
pending before District court and to wriggle out the observation dated
1/10/2008 of this court, wherein the petitioner herein are specifically
ordered not to take further adjournments, but despite the order of this
court, petitioner has been taking further adjournments, in the said
case.
5. I have heard arguments of the ld counsel of both the parties.
6. Bare perusal of the record reveals that suit no. 329/2007 is a suit
for possession of the property bearing no. F-83, 2nd floor, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi and suit no 2066/2008 is a suit for declaration ,partition ,
mandatory injunction and cancellation of documents. Parties to both
the suits are different except respondent herein. Issues are also
different in both the suits except one issue no.6 in suit no.329/2007
which is related to the authenticity and validity of gift deed dated
30/5/2001.
7. In view of the order dated 1/10/2008 of this court, I find that
petitioner has been grossly negligent to peruse the matter in the lower
court, he is the one who is guilty of laxity. Extract of the said order
reproduced below:
"Counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff for
the reasons of the institution of the present suit shall
not seek stay of proceedings of the suit instituted by
the defendant no.6 against the plaintiff and shall also
not take adjournment in that suit on this ground."
8. This order reveals that while allowing plaint to be registered in
suit no.2066/08, it was specifically ordered that plaintiff would not seek
any further adjournments and stay of the proceedings of the suit
No.329/2007. It is implicit from the above mentioned order that
registration of suit no.2066/2008 would not affect the suit
no.329/2007, it appears that because they are so stopped they have
come up with this transfer petition. If this petition is allowed, it would
prejudice the cause of the respondent in the lower court.
9. Suit no. 329/2007 was filed prior in time and is at the stage of
cross- examination of PWs, whereas the suit filed by the petitioner is at
the stage of pleadings, at very primary stage and if the present
petition is allowed it will further delay the matter.
10. It is well settled that provisions of transfer of suit cannot be
invoked as a matter of routine. There must exist proper ground for
transferring the suit and to prove the same burden lies on the
petitioner.
11. Forum hunting cannot be allowed by virtue of this provision of
C.P.C., there must be some rational basis of the same. Litigating
parties' cannot be allowed to choose the forum as per their whims and
choice.
12. As a general rule, the court should not interfere unless the
expenses and difficulties of the trial would be so great as to lead to
injustice or the suit has been filed in a particular court for the purpose
of working injustice.
13. The present transfer petition is without any merit and the same
is therefore dismissed.
S.L. BHAYANA, J
September 24, 2009
