Sunday, December 4, 2022

Delhi court dismisses plea seeking transfer of property suit

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

A Delhi court has dismissed a petition seeking transfer of the property suit between brothers Sunil and Anil Arora from a civil court to Tis Hazari District Court, saying that a similar case was pending in the district court of the same parties.

Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Sanjay Kumar observed on Friday that he did not find any ground to transfer the suit from the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judge Small Causes Court (JSCC), Abhishek Kumar to the court of Additional District Judge at Tis Hazari, Vishal Singh.

The PDS Judge at Tis Hazari directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court of Abhishek Kumar on October 14, 2022.

As per the application filed by Anil Arora, the subject matter, suit property and parties were same in both the suits and in order to reduce the multiplicity of litigation between the parties, the suit pending before the court of Abhishek Kumar, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (West) may be transferred to the court of Vishal Singh, ADJ-03 (west), Tis Hazari, Delhi.

The plea was strongly opposed by Advocates Gagan Gandhi and Ratakshi Sarvaria, who appeared for respondent Anil Arora.

Gandhi contended that the suit filed by applicant Sunil Arora before the court of JSCC/ ASCJ/GJ (West) Abhishek Kumar was not maintainable, as the Judge had already heard the arguments and the matter was at the verge of adjudication.

However, the Counsel for the applicant/petitioner had been avoiding appearance and seeking adjournments repeatedly, so as to delay the case, added Gandhi.

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, observed that the plaintiff and his Counsel were bent upon seeking adjournment on one ground or the other and avoided the arguments on the issue of maintainability of the suit, although almost for the past three years, the case was at the stage of arguments and even arguments were addressed by both the parties, now only clarifications or conclusion of arguments were to be addressed.

The PDSJ further noted that a notice of the application was issued to respondent Anil Arora for September 30, 2022. No steps were taken by the applicant, however, Counsel for the respondent Gagan Gandhi and Ratakshi Sarvaria appeared.

Gandhi submitted that he has checked the cause list on the internet and came to know about pendency of the present application, therefore, he appeared.

As per PDSJ Kumar, no one appeared on behalf of applicant Sunil Arora on September 30. At about 3:00 p.m. Geetanjali, proxy Counsel appeared and submitted that the main Counsel was not in a position to appear as one of the colleagues met with some accident, but she was ready to argue the present petition.

On the other hand, Gandhi submitted that the applicant and his Counsel, both were having the same conduct before the Trial

They intentionally and deliberately avoided appearing before the court and delay the proceedings, in the same way as they conducted themselves before this court.

Finding no merit in the petition, the District Court disposed of the same.

Petitioner Sunil Arora was represented by Advocate Deepak Sharma and Advocate Associate Geetajali.

Case title: Sunil Arora vs Anil Arora

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update