Rahul Sharma v. The State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 04 May 2023 · 2023:DHC:3145
Tushar Rao Gedela
CM(M) 724/2023
2023:DHC:3145
civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court set aside a transfer order passed without hearing the petitioner and remanded the matter for fresh hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice under Section 24 CPC.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3145
CM(M) 724/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 04.05.2023
CM(M) 724/2023
RAHUL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE, GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Sharma and Mr. K.S. Rana, Advocate along with petitioner-in- person.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Jain, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Amit Vohra, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exemptions. CM APPL. 22624/2023 (for exemption)

2. The application stands disposed of.

3. Petitioners challenges the order dated 19.04.2023 in M.NO. 328/23 titled as “Sonal Garg vs. Rahul Sharma & Anr.” whereby on an CM(M) 724/2023 & CM APPL. 22625/2023 (for stay) application under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908 filed by the respondent No.1, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge had transferred the MCA SCJ No. 6/22 titled as “Sonal Garg vs, Rahul Sharma” after withdrawal from the Court of Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh, learned ASCJ, Shahdara Distirct, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to the Court of Sh. Deepak Sherawat, learned SCJ, Shahdara Distirct, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to be tried as per law.

4. With the assistance of the counsel, this Court has come to a conclusion that the said order was passed in the absence of and without hearing the petitioner on such transfer petition.

5. The consideration of the petition/ application under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908, without hearing one of the sides may not be appropriate in the circumstances of the case for the reason that the parties appeared to be at variance with each other and at loggerheads on issues. In such situation, it would be prudent to permit all relevant parties to submit their arguments and consequent thereto, the Court ought to have passed the orders.

6. Having not heard the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order unsustainable and the present petition is fit for a remand.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 is set aside and the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge is requested to rehear the matter de novo after giving an opportunity to all the parties concerned and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of with no order as to costs.

9. At the request and consent of the parties, list before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 11.05.2023.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. MAY 04, 2023