47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P.(C.) 32/2009 RAJ KUMAR CHADHA Petitioner Through Mr. Ashim Vachher, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT,. DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: MS. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate for respondent no. 1. - Mr. Achal Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI ORDER % 21.07.2009 C.M. No. 9841/2009 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. TR.P.(C.) 32/2009 Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of State by MS. Purnima Maheshwari, advocate and on behalf of respondent no. 2 by Mr. Achal Gupta 1 Advocate. I have heard counsels for the parties and proceed to dispose off this petition. By this petition under Section 24 CPC, the petitioner seeks transfer of the case being P.C. No. 469/2006 titled as "Shri Raj Kumar 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 Chadha Vs. State of NCT, DelhI & Others" decided by the court of h. A.K. Sarpal, Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts,. Delhi pn 21.05.2008. The petitioner had instituted probate case no. 469/2006 in te court of District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. At the relevant time the petition was instituted in the court having jurisdiction. The petitin. was allowed on 21.05.2008 and it was ordered that letters [of administration be granted to the petitioner and respondent no. 2 joinly in respect of the immovabte and movable properties as mentioned[in the petition. This was subject to furnishin g requisite court fee and surety bonds. In the meantime, bifurcationof the District Courts took place. the properties in respect whereof the letters of administration were granted fell within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Rohini, New Delhi, the matter is liable to be transferred to the District Court, Rohini. The petitioner moved an application to furnish security bond before the District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. The same had been rejected on the ground that none of the properties in respect whereof letters of A administration had been granted fell within the jurisdiction of Wst District over which Tis Hazari Courts have jurisdiction. Since the petition was not contested and no objections were received, and both the successors in interest (class I heirs) of the deceased are represented, in my vi.ew, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I transfer the probate case no. 469/2006 to the court of the District Judge, Rohini, within whose jurisdiction the properties in respect whereof the letters of administration have been granted, are situated. Petition stands disposed off VIPIN SANGHI,J JULY. 21, 2009 dp I