Dargah Panch Peer Thr Abdul Malik vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1960 Del

*     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

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

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

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