Denvax Cellular Therapies P. Ltd. v. Amandeep Kaur

1. There is a request for adjournment in this petition which is for transfer under Section 24 CPC. Considering the facts of the present case, and especially, the order passed by this Court on 29.8.2013, I am not inclined to adjourn the case because if a new counsel appears, especially accepting a brief knowing that counsel will be out of station, no adjournment can be sought. The order dated 29.8.2013 reads as under:- “ The learned counsel for the respondent puts in appearance and seeks time to file reply. Let the reply be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to learned counsel for the respondent who may file a response thereto within a period of four weeks thereafter. 2014:DHC:414 The learned counsel for the respondent had given a suggestion that since the respondent happens to be an old lady of more than 60 years, therefore, he has no objection to the clubbing of both these suits at the court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. This request has not been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant. List on 23.01.2014.”

2. Counsel for the respondent also states that in a petition such as the present, no reply is required to be filed as the facts as stated in the petition itself can be looked into for deciding the same, and consequently, adjournment is opposed.

3. As the facts of the present case detailed below, will show the petition is without merit and adjournment sought is hence not justified.

4. By the present petition under Section 24 CPC, the appellant-company seeks transferred of the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent- Smt. Amandeep Kaur (and who is over 69 years old) against the petitioner (defendant in the trial court) from the Tis Hazari courts to Saket courts where the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of damages against the respondent. Following factors persuade me not to entertain this petition and dismiss the same:-

(i) The suit of the respondent-plaintiff has been filed in the court of correct territorial jurisdiction because as per the clause making averments of territorial jurisdiction of the Tis Hazari courts it is stated that the cheques were issued by the respondent herein in favour of the petitioner herein of a bank which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Tis Hazari courts, and therefore, the district courts at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

(ii) Suits cannot be got transferred at the convenience of a party, much less at a plain request of a company which is running a hospital, and against an individual who is an old lady of more than 60 years.

(iii) The suit filed by the petitioner at district courts Saket is subsequent in point of time to the suit filed by the respondent in the district courts at Tis Hazari, and petitioner is not interested in clubbing of the two suits by getting transferred its suit at Saket courts to Tis Hazari courts. I may note that counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is not interested in seeking transfer of the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner at Saket courts to the courts at Tis Hazari, of course, subject to the condition that the petitioner herein proves that Saket courts have the necessary territorial jurisdiction.

(iv) Just because in the city of Delhi now there are various district courts constituted simply for that reason and the convenience of a company, powers under Section 24 CPC cannot be exercised. Delhi is well connected by various means of transportation, and more so a company which is running a hospital cannot claim that a suit which is validly filed by the respondent at the district courts in Tis Hazari should for its convenience be transferred to the district courts at Saket, especially because no common questions of law and fact arise in the two suits.

5. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JANUARY 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib