Delhi High Court
Denvax Cellular Therapies P. Ltd. vs Amandeep Kaur on 23 January, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Tr.P.(C) 25/2013
% 23rd January, 2014
DENVAX CELLULAR THERAPIES P. LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yash Wadhwa Tiwari, Adv.
VERSUS
AMANDEEP KAUR ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Mendiratta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. There is a request for adjournment in this petition which is for transfer
under Section 24 CPC. Considering the facts of the present case, and
especially, the order passed by this Court on 29.8.2013, I am not inclined to
adjourn the case because if a new counsel appears, especially accepting a
brief knowing that counsel will be out of station, no adjournment can be
sought. The order dated 29.8.2013 reads as under:-
" The learned counsel for the respondent puts in
appearance and seeks time to file reply.
Let the reply be filed within four weeks with an advance
copy to learned counsel for the respondent who may file a
response thereto within a period of four weeks thereafter.
T.P 25/2013 Page 1 of 4
The learned counsel for the respondent had given a
suggestion that since the respondent happens to be an old lady
of more than 60 years, therefore, he has no objection to the
clubbing of both these suits at the court at Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi. This request has not been accepted by the learned
counsel for the appellant.
List on 23.01.2014."
2. Counsel for the respondent also states that in a petition such as the
present, no reply is required to be filed as the facts as stated in the petition
itself can be looked into for deciding the same, and consequently,
adjournment is opposed.
3. As the facts of the present case detailed below, will show the petition
is without merit and adjournment sought is hence not justified.
4. By the present petition under Section 24 CPC, the appellant-company
seeks transferred of the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent-
Smt. Amandeep Kaur (and who is over 69 years old) against the petitioner
(defendant in the trial court) from the Tis Hazari courts to Saket courts
where the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of damages against the
respondent. Following factors persuade me not to entertain this petition and
dismiss the same:-
T.P 25/2013 Page 2 of 4
(i) The suit of the respondent-plaintiff has been filed in the court of
correct territorial jurisdiction because as per the clause making averments of
territorial jurisdiction of the Tis Hazari courts it is stated that the cheques
were issued by the respondent herein in favour of the petitioner herein of a
bank which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Tis Hazari courts,
and therefore, the district courts at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the suit which is filed by the respondent-plaintiff.
(ii) Suits cannot be got transferred at the convenience of a party, much
less at a plain request of a company which is running a hospital, and against
an individual who is an old lady of more than 60 years.
(iii) The suit filed by the petitioner at district courts Saket is subsequent in
point of time to the suit filed by the respondent in the district courts at Tis
Hazari, and petitioner is not interested in clubbing of the two suits by getting
transferred its suit at Saket courts to Tis Hazari courts. I may note that
counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is not interested in
seeking transfer of the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner at Saket courts
to the courts at Tis Hazari, of course, subject to the condition that the
petitioner herein proves that Saket courts have the necessary territorial
jurisdiction.
T.P 25/2013 Page 3 of 4
(iv) Just because in the city of Delhi now there are various district courts
constituted simply for that reason and the convenience of a company,
powers under Section 24 CPC cannot be exercised. Delhi is well connected
by various means of transportation, and more so a company which is running
a hospital cannot claim that a suit which is validly filed by the respondent at
the district courts in Tis Hazari should for its convenience be transferred to
the district courts at Saket, especially because no common questions of law
and fact arise in the two suits.
5. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
JANUARY 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
