2 $-30 * IN TIIE IIIGII -r- 'r'R.P.(c) 28t20r0 NANAK CI.IANI) COURT O,F- DEI,HI A1 NEW DI'LIII ..... Pctitioncr VETSUS OM PRAKASII ..... Itcspondent Ihrough : Sh. A.C.Ilhasin, Advocatc. COITAM: IION'I}LE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA I]IIAT ORDER "h 16.12.20L0 l ' In this sttit, transfer proceedings is sought in respect of thrcc suits -- Suit No. 5912008 titled S%r'i Nanuk Chctnd tt. Shri Om Prctkasl,r ; Suit No. 762/200g tirlcd Oirr Prakash v. Nanak Chand and Suit No. 197912008 titled Nunak Chctncl v. ont prukqsh; as is evident, tlrcse arc old rnatters, pending in at least two instances, for norc that 2 yz decades, and in the last suit, Ibr almost 2 decades. 'I'he petitioner's casc is that thc suits r'vcrc heard by the Presiding Judgc .-. Sh. Itaj Kumar, Civil Juclgc (North), I'is Ilazari, Delhi, fol a considcrablc period of time, ancl finally thc rnatlcr was fixcd for 31.0tt.2010. It is contcnded that on that date, the learned Presiding Officer fixed 1hc 'ratter fbr 16'09'2010, for rebuttal arguments of one of the parties, sincc substantial hearing had been completed. In the meanwhile, on the same day, administrative orclers werc made by this Court, reorganizing thc Rostel in the Delhi Court. As a conscqucncc, Sh..Itaj Kumar- was assigtred another Court. I'Ie is now presiding ovcl the Small Causcs Co'rt in the Karkardooma Court. The petitioncr in these rnatters contcnds thal thesc mattcrs sho*ld bc assigned to the sarne Judge since he had heard the case almost fully alcl that if the hearing is started de novo, thc matler would bc fuither dclayed. 2' Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the original contcsting parties had died and that thcir legal representatives had not bccn impleadcd. It is subrnitted lurlhcr that any order by this Courl would bc constrned as an advcrsc commcnt on thc t ft Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Lr competence of the Judge rvho has been assigned these cascs, i.c. Sh. V.K. Gautan, Civil Judge (Nor1h). 3. fhis Court has carefully considered the submission. It is apparent from the order shcet, a fact which is not disputed, that substantial hearing had bcen concludcd i1 the three suits which arc very old. No doubt, thc order sheet of 31.08.2010 does show some conteutiotts issues but thc fact remains that both thc parties had acldresscd extensive argumcnts in all the three suits which appear to be interlinkcd zurcl only last couple of hearings were lefl. In these circumstances, the adrninistrative ordcr was an urforeseen circumstance which resulted in a peculiar situation whcre the matler woulcl havc to bc hcard afresh. Keeping in rnind the overall conspectus of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that to avoid further delay and to sparc the partics the agony of having to sparc time, encl'gy and fufther resources, towards a fi'csh cle not o hearing, elds of justice rcquire that all the tluee matters are placed before Sh. Raj Kumar, Irresiding Officer of the Small Causes Court at Karkardooma Court. The l)istrict Judgc (Tis Hzzari) ald District Judge (Karkardooma Court) are directed to ensure that this order is conplied rvithin two wecks and all the tlrrec cases are assigned to thc saicl Judgc. 'firc parlics are directed to appcar before Sh. Itaj Kumar, who shall proceed to conclude thc hearilg, having regard to thc rccord ancl the circumstances of the casc. It is maclc clcar- that this oldcr is passed in thc circumstances of the case and would not bc construcd adversely or as a reflection on the competence of the present Presiding Judge - Sh. V.K. (iautam. 'I'he rtcr'vly assigned Judge, Sh. Raj Kumar is requested to conoludc thc hcaring and pronouncc thc jtrdgment, at his earlicst conveniencc. 'It. Pet. (C) 2812010 is allowed i1 thc above terms. Order dasti to the parlies. DI|CEMBEI{ 16,2010 'a.ik' S. RAVINDRA I}[IAT.J t