Manju Sabharwal vs Arun Sabharwal
2014 Latest Caselaw 594 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               TR.P (C) No. 67/2013 & CM 12156/2013
%                                      30th January, 2014
MANJU SABHARWAL                              ...... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

ARUN SABHARWAL                                            ...... Respondent
                          Through:       Respondent in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?        Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.     This is a petition under Section 24 CPC to transfer two cases which

are pending in Tis Hazari courts since 2006-2007 being divorce cases filed

by both the parties against each other to the courts at Saket.


2.     The only ground pleaded is the factum that the courts at Saket being

nearer to the residence of the petitioner than the courts at Tis Hazari where

presently the cases are pending.


3.     At the time of bifurcation of Delhi into nine Districts and re-allocation

of work by transfer of cases, many aspects and considerations existed,

including of equal distribution of work in courts, and which was for the

TRP (C) 67/2013                                                               Page 1 of 2
 benefit of the litigants so that in some courts there are not too many cases

and in other courts there should not be less cases. Administrative decisions

cannot be got upset for personal convenience.

4.     Also, it is conceded before me that at the very best the petitioner

would have to go to the court once in a month and if that be so for one day in

a month is not a ground to transfer the case from Tis Hazari courts to Saket

courts. Taking that the petitioner is suffering from Parkinson's disease

convenience of less travel by a few kilometers cannot be a ground to transfer

a case under Section 24 CPC.


5.     I may note that there was only one district courts originally in Delhi at

Tis Hazari and merely because now there are nine district courts, parties

cannot start approaching this Court under Section 24 CPC for transfer of

their cases based on convenience.


6.     In view of the above, no case is made out for exercise of powers under

Section 24 CPC. Dismissed.




JANUARY 30, 2014                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib