Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th March, 2015
VIPUL GARG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Adv.
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Sumit Aggarwal, Adv. and
Mr. Vishrut Raj, Adv.
JUDGMENT
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 2015:DHC:2896 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.
JUDGE MARCH 25, 2015 vk