Full Text
Translation output
A-23
% 30.8.2011
Present: Ms.Indrani Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Nitin Khanna, Advocate for respondents no.1,3 and
4.
Ms. Meena Kumar,Advocate for respondent no.2.
+TR.P.(C) No.48/2010 & CM No.16504/2010
*
This transfer petition seeks a transfer of the two suits i.e.
Suit No.391/2008 and Suit No.118/2010 from Tis Hazari Courts, (Central District) to the Saket Court. The record shows that Suit
No.391/2008 has been filed by Ranu Sen seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from dispossessing her from the suit property i.e Second Floor, B-239, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. The dispute is between a wife and her warring husband; the in-laws have also been arrayed as party. Second suit i.e. Suit
No.118/2010 has been filed by the mother-in-law against her son and daughter-in-law seeking possession of the suit premises.
Contention before this Court is that the second suit has been filed as a counter blast to the suit filed by the petitioner; the suit is in fact a collusive suit. Further contention is that for the convenience of the parties it would be in the interest ofjustice that these two suits be also transferred to the Saket Court. Consolidation of the two suits has also been sought. The prayer made in the present petition is ill founded. Admittedly both the suits i.e. Suit
2011:DHC:19088
»■
No.391/2008 and the second suit i.e. Suit No.118/2008 had been filed in the year 2008 i.e. prior to the distribution of the work jurisdiction wise; in fact at that time there were no courts functioning at Saket. The entire administrative set up would be overhauled and put in a havoc if this kind of prayer, based on the convenience of the parties is allowed. TraiJIsfer petition has no merit. Dismissed.
AUGUST 30, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:19088
% 30.8.2011
Present: Ms.Indrani Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Nitin Khanna, Advocate for respondents no.1,3 and
4.
Ms. Meena Kumar,Advocate for respondent no.2.
+TR.P.(C) No.48/2010 & CM No.16504/2010
*
This transfer petition seeks a transfer of the two suits i.e.
Suit No.391/2008 and Suit No.118/2010 from Tis Hazari Courts, (Central District) to the Saket Court. The record shows that Suit
No.391/2008 has been filed by Ranu Sen seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from dispossessing her from the suit property i.e Second Floor, B-239, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. The dispute is between a wife and her warring husband; the in-laws have also been arrayed as party. Second suit i.e. Suit
No.118/2010 has been filed by the mother-in-law against her son and daughter-in-law seeking possession of the suit premises.
Contention before this Court is that the second suit has been filed as a counter blast to the suit filed by the petitioner; the suit is in fact a collusive suit. Further contention is that for the convenience of the parties it would be in the interest ofjustice that these two suits be also transferred to the Saket Court. Consolidation of the two suits has also been sought. The prayer made in the present petition is ill founded. Admittedly both the suits i.e. Suit
2011:DHC:19088
»■
No.391/2008 and the second suit i.e. Suit No.118/2008 had been filed in the year 2008 i.e. prior to the distribution of the work jurisdiction wise; in fact at that time there were no courts functioning at Saket. The entire administrative set up would be overhauled and put in a havoc if this kind of prayer, based on the convenience of the parties is allowed. TraiJIsfer petition has no merit. Dismissed.
AUGUST 30, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:19088
JUDGMENT