[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Narinder Khullar vs Param Dev Chopra on 1 April, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 25th March, 2026
Date of Decision: 01st April, 2026
+ CM(M) 398/2026
NARINDER KHULLAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prateek and Ms. Yakshi Kataria,
Advocates.
versus
PARAM DEV CHOPRA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tejas Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 03rd January, 2026
passed by the learned trial court in RC ARC No. 5135/16, whereby the case
which had been reserved for judgment by the learned trial court (hereinafter
referred to as the 'learned predecessor judge'), was released from the stage of
judgment.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the case has been
heard and reserved for judgment by the trial court, the same could not have
been released from the stage of judgment. Learned counsel further relies upon
the transfer order bearing No. 41/DHC/Gaz/G-7/VI.E.2(a)/2025 dated 17th
October, 2025, issued by the learned Registrar General of this Court. It is
submitted that the case had been reserved for judgment by the learned
predecessor judge prior to the issuance of the said transfer order. However,
the learned predecessor judge, without pronouncing the judgment as required
under the said transfer order, transferred the case to learned successor judge.
It is contended that any rehearing of the case would result in undue delay in
the adjudication of the case and would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the respondent also submits that he has no
objection if the case is placed before the learned predecessor Judge, who had
heard the final arguments, for the purpose of pronouncement of judgment.
4. A perusal of the record shows that the case was reserved for judgment
on 17th September, 2025 after conclusion of the final arguments on 20th
August, 2025 by the learned predecessor judge. The case was thereafter
repeatedly listed for pronouncement of judgment on 13th October, 2025, 25th
November, 2025, 26th December, 2025 and 3rd January, 2026, however, the
judgment was not pronounced.
5. The impugned order was passed on 3rd January, 2026, which reads as
follows:
"The matter is listed for pronouncement of judgment. On
perusal of the record, it appears that certain clarifications
are necessary for proper adjudication from both the sides for
proper and complete adjudication of the issues involved. The
Court is of the considered view that the matter cannot be
finally disposed of at this stage without hearing further
arguments, particularly on the points which arise from the
record and which have a bearing on the final outcome.
However, this Court is presently not in a position to hear
further arguments in the matter, since the undersigned has
been transferred from the Court where the matter was heard
and thereafter reserved for judgment. Accordingly, the
present case is released from the stage of judgment.
Let the complete file be sent back to the concerned Court for
further proceedings for 12.01.2026."
6. It is also pertinent to note that the learned predecessor Judge was
transferred vide transfer order dated 17th October, 2025, issued by learned
Registrar General of this Court. The relevant portion thereof is reproduced as
under:
"HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
No. 41 /DHC/Gaz/G- 7/VI.E.2(a)/2025
Dated: 17 October, 2025
ORDER
Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Judges of this Court have
been pleased to make the following postings/transfers in the
Delhi Judicial Service with immediate effect:-
S. Name of From To District Remar
No. officer to which ks
(Mr./Ms.) allocated
6. Mohit SCJ-cum-RC, CJM, Shahdara In a
Sharma South-East, Shahdara, vacant
Saket KKD court
Note(s):-
1. The judicial officers shall be under the control of the Principal
District & Sessions Judge of the district, to which they have
been allocated.
2. The judicial officers under transfer shall notify the cases in
which they had reserved judgments/orders before
relinquishing the charge of the court in terms of the
posting/transfer order. The judicial officers shall pronounce
judgments/orders in all such matters on the date fixed or
maximum within a period of 2-3 weeks thereof,
notwithstanding the posting/transfer. Date of pronouncement
shall be notified in the cause list of the court to which the
matter pertains as also of the court to which the judicial
officer has been transferred and on the website."
7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.M.C. 9064/2025 titled
Parvesh Mann @ Sagar Mann v. State (NCT of Delhi), decided on 05th
January, 2026, has dealt with an issue similar to that as involved in the
present petition and upon placing reliance on the judgment in B.D. Sharma
vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., reportable as 2025:DHC:5607 has held as
follows:
"21. Once final arguments had been fully heard, the learned
Predecessor Judge was bound to pronounce the judgment.
Directing a rehearing of arguments in such circumstances
not only defeats the mandate of the transfer orders and the
law laid down by this Court, but also results in avoidable
delay in adjudication and places an unnecessary burden
upon the learned Successor Judge, who is compelled to
rehear a matter that has already been fully argued."
8. From the record, it is evident that final arguments in the case were heard
on 20th August, 2025 and the case remained reserved for pronouncement of
judgment for about four months with the learned predecessor judge. The
observation of the learned predecessor judge in the impugned order dated 03rd
January, 2026, to the effect that further arguments were required, is not
justified as the case remained reserved for judgment for a considerable period
of time. The release of the case from the stage of final judgment and sending it
back to the learned successor judge for 12th January, 2026 is unjustified as it is
contrary to the transfer order as well as the settled principles of law as
discussed above.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the
learned predecessor judge ought to pronounce the judgment in the said case.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03rd January, 2026, whereby the case
was released from the stage of judgment and sent back to the learned
successor court for further proceedings, is set aside.
The case bearing no. RC ARC 5135/16 is directed to be transferred
from the court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, South East, Saket
Courts, New Delhi, to the court of learned predecessor judge, presently posted
as CJM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for the purpose of
pronouncement of judgment.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above-stated terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
11. Copy of the order be sent to both the courts for necessary information
and compliance.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
APRIL 01, 2026/ik
