NewKerala.com

Key Points

The Delhi High Court just threw out a petition seeking to transfer a rent recovery case. Justice Banerjee didn't hold back, calling the plea an "imaginary story" cooked up by the petitioners. The court found it particularly troubling that they made serious allegations against a sitting judge without any proof. Ultimately, the petitioners got slapped with a Rs 50,000 cost for wasting the court's time with what the judge called "flimsy and mythical assertions."

Key Points: Delhi HC Imposes Rs 50000 Cost for Imaginary Transfer Plea

  • Petitioners alleged bias claiming trial judge addressed someone friendly in court
  • Court found allegations baseless with no supporting evidence or documents
  • Petitioners had actively participated in trial court proceedings previously
  • Similar transfer petition was earlier withdrawn but not disclosed to court
2 min read

Delhi HC declines to transfer rent recovery suit, imposes Rs 50,000 cost for 'imaginary story'

Delhi High Court dismisses rent recovery suit transfer petition, calls it "figment of infertile imagination" and imposes Rs 50,000 cost on petitioners for baseless allegations.

"The present petition is nothing but a figment of the infertile imagination of the petitioners - Justice Saurabh Banerjee"

New Delhi, Oct 3

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of a rent recovery suit from the Tis Hazari Court, terming the plea as "a figment of infertile imagination" and imposing a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioners.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a petition seeking the transfer of a suit for recovery of rent, mesne profits, and damages from Commercial Court-01, Tis Hazari, to any other competent court within the same district.

The petitioners alleged bias on the part of the trial judge, claiming he had "allegedly addressed one of the persons standing in the Court in a friendly manner", who was purportedly associated with the respondents.

However, Justice Banerjee found the allegations baseless, observing that “the present petition is based on mere whims and fancies”.

"The present petition is nothing but a figment of the infertile imagination of the petitioners with bald assertions without any basis," he added.

In his order, Justice Banerjee noted that the petitioners had actively participated in proceedings before the trial court, including appearing in person on multiple dates and had also filed their written statements, statements of truth and admission, and affidavits.

The bench also noted that a similar transfer petition had earlier been filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge but was subsequently withdrawn, yet "the petitioners have not filed the same along with the present petition".

"Surprisingly, despite thereto, the petitioners have chosen neither to aver anything qua them in detail nor to file any of the aforesaid before this Court," it said.

“The petitioners by way of the present petition are trying to cast unwarranted, fictitious and fallacious aspersions by making flimsy, misleading and mythical assertions on a sitting Judge… contrary to the records before this Court but also without any backing thereto,” observed Justice Banerjee.

Finding no merit in the petition, the Delhi High Court dismissed the plea and ordered the petitioners to deposit Rs 50,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers' Social Security and Welfare Fund.

“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 order stated.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
"Figment of infertile imagination" - what strong language from the judge! But honestly, how can someone claim bias just because the judge spoke to someone in court? This seems like a desperate attempt to delay the rent recovery case.
S
Sarah B
As someone who's been through property litigation in Delhi, I appreciate this judgment. Tenants often use such tactics to delay eviction or rent payment. The courts need to be strict about this.
A
Arjun K
While I agree frivolous petitions should be discouraged, ₹50,000 seems quite steep for ordinary citizens. The court could have given a warning first. Not everyone can afford such heavy costs. 🤔
M
Meera T
Tis Hazari courts have a reputation for being tough but fair. The petitioners participated in all proceedings and then suddenly cried bias? Clearly a delaying tactic. Justice served! ✅
D
David E
Interesting how the judge noted they withdrew a similar petition earlier but didn't file it with this one. Shows they were hiding facts. The court saw right through their strategy. Well done Justice Banerjee!

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50