Delhi High Court
Vipul Garg vs Baljeet Chand Rehal & Anr on 25 March, 2015
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25th March, 2015
+ TR.P.(C.) 12/2015
VIPUL GARG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Adv.
versus
BALJEET CHAND REHAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv. with
Mr. Sumit Aggarwal, Adv. and
Mr. Vishrut Raj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the Respondents state that reply to the Petition is
not needed to be filed.
2. This Petition is for transfer of the Civil Suit No.05/2012 titled Baljeet
Chand Rehal v. Vipul Garg & Anr. from the Court of Additional
District Judge (ADJ), Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi now presided
over by Dr. Archana Sinha, ADJ to the Court of Mr. Ajay Goel, who
has been transferred as ADJ, North, Rohini, Delhi.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that while hearing
the appeal being FAO No.33/2013, the learned Single Judge of this
Court had directed expeditious disposal of the suit in a time bound
manner.
4. It is stated that the evidence was recorded and the arguments were
heard by Mr. Ajay Goel, ADJ and the matter was listed for orders on
23.01.2015. It is also stated that by that time certain transfer orders
dated 12.01.2015 were passed by the High Court, which were
subsequently modified on 19.01.2015 and the Court of Mr. Ajay Goel,
ADJ was abolished and the instant civil suit was assigned to the Court
presided over by Dr. Archana Sinha, ADJ.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through order dated
23.01.2015 which shows that even the parties had made a joint request
for disposal of the pronouncement of the judgment by the same
Presiding Officer. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has further
referred to Rule 6, Volume I, Chapter 11 of the High Court Rules &
Orders and Note 3, appended to the transfer order dated 12.01.2015. It
is stated that in view of Delhi High Court Rules and Note 3, appended
to the transfer order, it was appropriate for the previous ADJ to have
proceeded to decide the case before he was relieved of his duties on
24.01.2015 or in any case, to take the case along, conclude the
arguments and pronounce the judgment. It is stated that only some
clarifications were required by the learned Presiding Officer and it
would be in the interest of justice and expeditious disposal of the suit
that the matter is heard and decided by the previous Presiding Officer.
6. The Petition is opposed by learned counsel for Respondent no.1.
However, Respondent no.2 has no objection to the same.
7. It is urged by learned counsel for Respondent no.1 that no objection
for pronouncing the judgment was given by Respondent no.1 on the
assumption that the matter shall be decided on the same date i.e.,
23.01.2015 itself, which was the date for pronouncement of the
judgment.
8. It is not in dispute that the evidence in the case has already been
concluded. It is true that the learned previous Presiding Officer had
heard the arguments and had reserved the matter for judgment. At the
same time, he needed clarification and that is why, he listed the matter
for clarification on 24.02.2015 knowing fully well that he will not be
presiding over the Court on that date i.e. on 24.02.2015.
9. In my view, instead of moving this Petition, the parties could have
proceeded to address arguments before the Presiding Officer, who had
joined and by this time the matter could have been decided. The
matter is already listed before the successor Court on 31.03.2015.
10. It is requested that the learned Presiding Officer shall endeavor to
decide the case within one month of the date fixed for final arguments.
11. The Transfer Petition is accordingly dismissed with the observations
as stated above.
12. Dasti to the counsel for the parties.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 25, 2015
vk
