Arun Kumar Arora vs Premshanti Kunj Flat Owners ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 1630 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         TR.P(C) No.10/2014

%                                                      26th March, 2014

ARUN KUMAR ARORA                                       ......Petitioner
                Through:                 Petitioner in person.


                          VERSUS


PREMSHANTI KUNJ FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION ...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM 2282/2014(exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

TR.P.(C.) 10/2014 & CM Nos. 2205/2014 (stay)

1. Though this case was adjourned on 4.2.2014 because the appellant

wanted an Advocate from the Legal Aid Committee, but today, petitioner

states that he would like to himself argue his case. Accordingly, let the

petitioner argue his case.

2. This is a petition under Section 24 CPC for transferring the suit No.

360/2013 pending in the court of Sh. Vikrant Vaid, Civil Judge-20, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi to any other court.

3. A reference to the grounds urged in the petition shows that petitioner

is aggrieved either on account of grant of adjournment or on account of not

giving of certified copy in time or the Civil Judge not deciding issue of

maintainability etc etc. I am not reproducing the grounds which are stated in

the petition for transfer of the suit, but essentially, none of these grounds are

such grounds so as to justify invocation of Section 24 CPC for transfer of the

suit.

4. I may note that no judicial order deciding any application is passed by

the concerned court with respect to which bias can be said to exist as is the

case of the petitioner.

5. I may note that no pleadings of the suit are filed and it was not even

mentioned that the petitioner is which defendant in the suit, though during

the course of hearing it transpires that petitioner is defendant no. 2.

6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and it is not

possible to allow the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the suit from

where the same is presently pending to another court of the Civil Judge.

Petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

MARCH 26, 2014                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara