Delhi District Court
Shatrunjay vs Avinash Gulati on 21 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. R. KIRAN NATH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH), ROHINI : DELHI
TP (C) No. : 22/2013
Shatrunjay
S/o Kedarnath
R/o N-21, Block N,
Rajiv Nagar Extn., Begumpur,
Delhi. ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Avinash Gulati
R/o AE-160, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi - 110088. .... Respondent
-: O R D E R :-
This is a transfer petition for transfer of the case titled 'Shatrunjay Vs. Avinash Gulati' CS No. 623/2013 from the court of Ms.Shefali Sharma, Ld. Civil Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2. In brief, the facts as spelled out by petitioner are that in November 2011 petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction bearing no. 623/2013 titled as Shatrunjay Vs. Avinash Gulati along with an interim injunction application.
3. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was allowed in favour of the plaintiff/applicant on 08.06.2012. The defendant/respondent filed a writ challenging the said order but the same was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27.08.2012. However, the defendant/respondent did not comply with the directions of Ld. Civil Judge and hence, an application for contempt U/s 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act was filed by the TP (C) No. 22/13 Shatrunjay Vs. Avinash Gulati Page No. 1/5 plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant/ respondent moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and another under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim order. It was at this juncture that the case was transferred to the court of Ms.Shefali Sharma, Ld. Civil Judge.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that Ld. Civil Judge started hearing arguments on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Though the counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner had requested the court to first decide the contempt application but Ld. Civil Judge did not pay heed; that after hearing part arguments on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, she advised defendant to move applications under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC and under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. The defendant immediately moved said applications. He (defendant) categorically wrote in his application under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC that he was advised by the court to move the present application. Without hearing the arguments on the applications, Ld. Civil Judge started examining the plaintiff and after examining the plaintiff, she started dictating order on the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. It is alleged that on his (plaintiff/petitioner) objection, the court flatly said that the stay was wrong and needed to be vacated. It is the grievance of the plaintiff/petitioner that the ld. trial court was adamant and had pre-decided to vacate the stay which was not only passed by her Ld. Predecessor but also confirmed by Hon'ble High Court and there had been no change in the circumstances since then to warrant the stay to be vacated. It is the objection of ld. counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that application of contempt should be decided first but Ld. Civil Judge fixed the date 11.10.2013 for arguments on the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
TP (C) No. 22/13 Shatrunjay Vs. Avinash Gulati Page No. 2/55. TCR had been called for and perused. Certain relevant facts are noted as under:
i. Order on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was passed on 08.06.2012.
ii. Defendant had filed a writ petition in Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2012. iii. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC along with application under Order 39 R 4 CPC for vacation of stay was filed by the defendant on 10.09.2012.
iv. The contempt petition by the plaintiff/present petitioner was filed on 06.10.2012 for not complying the directions under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
6. The main grievance of the plaintiff is that Ld. Civil Judge was biased, in as much as she was not proceeding as per law and had taken up the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC before deciding the Contempt Petition. At the outset, it is to be noted that this application has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner only for transfer of the case and not for challenging procedure followed by Ld. Civil Judge.
7. In my opinion, the averments made by the plaintiff/petitioner do not spell out any valid ground to transfer the case. The apprehensions in the mind of the plaintiff/petitioner seems to be misplaced as evident from the facts enumerated above i.e. application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was moved by defendant prior to application of Contempt moved by the plaintiff. That aside, it is also seen that these applications have been moved by the parties before this case was transferred to the court of Ms.Shefali Sharma, Ld. Civil TP (C) No. 22/13 Shatrunjay Vs. Avinash Gulati Page No. 3/5 Judge on 01.06.2013 and application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been proceeded with by the previous Presiding Officer before transfer of this case to the court of Ms.Shefali Sharma, Ld. Civil Judge. On 01.06.2013, parties were directed to appear in person on the next date, However, the present case got transferred before the next date of hearing. It appears that the Ld. Civil Judge had only picked up and continued the proceedings from where it was left by her predecessor.
8. I, thus, hold that the plaintiff/ petitioner has not been able to make out any substantial ground for transfer of the case to another court. The transfer petition is thus, dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before ld. Trial Court on 18.04.2014.
9. Trial court record be returned alongwith copy of this order.
Transfer petition file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
on 21st March, 2014 (R. KIRAN NATH)
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. ar
TP (C) No. 22/13 Shatrunjay Vs. Avinash Gulati Page No. 4/5
TP (C) No. 22/13
Shatrunjay Vs. Avinash Gulati
21.03.2014
Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, the transfer petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before ld. Trial Court on 18.04.2014. Trial court record be returned alongwith copy of this order. Transfer petition file be consigned to Record Room.
(R. KIRAN NATH) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. ar TP (C) No. 22/13 Shatrunjay Vs. Avinash Gulati Page No. 5/5