The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on two petitioners seeking transfer of a commercial suit, terming their plea "a figment of infertile imagination" and "based on mere whims and fancies." The Court imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on two litigants who sought transfer of a case pending before a district court on the ground that the trial judge allegedly addressed the opposite party in a “friendly manner” inside the courtroom.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed the transfer plea carried misleading and mythical assertions regarding a sitting trial judge without any evidence. “The petitioners by way of the present petition are trying to cast unwarranted, fictious and fallacious aspersions by making flimsy, misleading and mythical assertions on a sitting Judge of the learned Trial Court, which are not only contrary to the records before this Court but also without any backing thereto. This Court, in any event, takes a serious objection to the filing of the present petition, and that too by making and cooking up an imaginary story,” the High Court stated.
The Court added that the petition was based on whims and fancies and a figment of infertile imagination of the petitioners.
“Considering the averments made by the petitioners as also their conduct before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is based on mere whims and fancies. The present petition is nothing but a figment of infertile imagination of the petitioners with bald assertions without any basis."
The suit before the Tis Hazari District court pertained to recovery of rent. The petitioners in the present plea sought transfer of the matter to a different judge, alleging that the Additional District Judge (ADJ) hearing the case addressed the respondent in a “friendly manner”.However, the Court noted that the petitioners had not filed any affidavit of the counsel appearing for them before the ADJ. It also found that the petitioners had continued to appear before the same judge after the alleged incident.
"Not stopping thereto, it is notable that learned counsel for petitioners also agrees that the very same petitioners had filed their written statement alongwith the statement of truth and admission/ denial affidavit of the documents of the respondents/ plaintiffs prior to 28.08.2025 itself," it added.
Further, the Court found that the petitioners had filed a similar transfer plea before Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts but had later withdrawn it. The petitioners failed to file a copy of the same along with their present transfer petition, it noted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea with the following order,.
Follow us
