[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sunil Badhawar vs Ramesh Kumar Kalra (Dec.) Thr Lrs & Ors on 19 February, 2026
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th February, 2026
+ CM(M) 1802/2025 & CM APPL. 57841/2025
SUNIL BADHAWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pooja Chhabra and Ms. Pallavi,
Advocates.
versus
RAMESH KUMAR KALRA (DEC.) THR LRS & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shilpi Ohri, ASC for R-MCD.
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate R-2 to
4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER (Oral)
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 21st July, 2025,
passed by the learned Trial Court in TP(C) 14/2025, whereby the transfer
petition preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
"Present transfer petition has been moved seeking
transfer of civil suit bearing no. 961/2022 titled 'Sunil
Badhawar vs Ramesh Kumar Kalra & Ors.' pending
before the court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Malik, Ld. JSCC
-ASC J-Gdn. Judge, South West Dwarka Courts (now
presided over by Sh.Mayank Mittal) to the court of
competent jurisdiction on the ground that the court
lacks pecuniary jurisdiction.
Heard. Considered.
The issue of jurisdiction regarding subject matter of
the civil suit is a legal question and can be decided by
the court. If the court comes to the conclusion that
there is no pecuniary jurisdiction, the court has the
discretion under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to return the
plaint.
This court cannot interfere in such circumstances
and no order for transfer of civil suit can be passed.
Accordingly, present transfer petition is
dismissed."
5. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 submits that the
application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC is now fixed for orders.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated
15th January, 2026 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in TR.P.(C.)
156/2025.
7. There is no doubt as to the law laid down in the said judgment with
regard to the powers of the Court to transfer a matter under Section 24 of the
CPC. However, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, as the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC moved on
behalf of the respondent/defendant is now fixed for orders. The decision of
the trial Court on this application will decide whether the plaint has to be
returned or not. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld.
8. The petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026/v/isk
