Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR.P (C) No. 67/2013 & CM 12156/2013 30th January, 2014
MANJU SABHARWAL ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate.
Through: Respondent in person.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Section 24 CPC to transfer two cases which are pending in Tis Hazari courts since 2006-2007 being divorce cases filed by both the parties against each other to the courts at Saket.
2. The only ground pleaded is the factum that the courts at Saket being nearer to the residence of the petitioner than the courts at Tis Hazari where presently the cases are pending.
3. At the time of bifurcation of Delhi into nine Districts and re-allocation of work by transfer of cases, many aspects and considerations existed, including of equal distribution of work in courts, and which was for the 2014:DHC:583 TRP (C) 67/2013 benefit of the litigants so that in some courts there are not too many cases and in other courts there should not be less cases. Administrative decisions cannot be got upset for personal convenience.
4. Also, it is conceded before me that at the very best the petitioner would have to go to the court once in a month and if that be so for one day in a month is not a ground to transfer the case from Tis Hazari courts to Saket courts. Taking that the petitioner is suffering from Parkinson’s disease convenience of less travel by a few kilometers cannot be a ground to transfer a case under Section 24 CPC.
5. I may note that there was only one district courts originally in Delhi at Tis Hazari and merely because now there are nine district courts, parties cannot start approaching this Court under Section 24 CPC for transfer of their cases based on convenience.
6. In view of the above, no case is made out for exercise of powers under Section 24 CPC. Dismissed.
JANUARY 30, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib