Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR.P(C) No.10/2014 26th March, 2014 ARUN KUMAR ARORA ......Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Through:
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. Though this case was adjourned on 4.2.2014 because the appellant wanted an Advocate from the Legal Aid Committee, but today, petitioner 2014:DHC:1674 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