Learned Single Judge of the High Court has numbered in the proceedings what appellant had stated before the companyrt that he has numberobjection in the case being transferred to another companyrt as prayed for by the respondent.
But, despite the aforesaid offer made by the appellant learned Single Judge of the High Court adjourned the revision from time to time until it reached the date 10.9.1998 on which day the respondent filed a civil miscellaneous petition praying that in the event the Honble High Court is pleased to allow the revision and quash the impugned order, the suit presently pending before Shri S.N. Dhingra, learned Additional District Judge, Delhi may be transferred to some other companyrt.
Appellant, who was innocent of the attitude of the companynsel for the defendant towards the Additional District Judge, entered appearance in the High Court and submitted that he has numberobjection to have the case transferred to any other companypetent companyrt and all that he needed was a decision on the application made by him under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code.
Appellant has filed this special leave petition at the above stage challenging the order entertaining the revision and also the order by which the revision has been adjourned to such farther extent.
We heard Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate for the respondent.
A revision petition was filed by the respondent before the Delhi High Court in challenge of the aforesaid order.
A single Judge of the High Court entertained the same on 29.5.1998 and ordered stay of proceedings before the trial companyrt.
Still, learned Single Judge called for the companyments of the Additional District Judge companycerned regarding the transfer petition and posted the revision to a far off date in the month of January 1999 and stayed all further proceedings in the trial companyrt.
Appellant being an octogenarian has seemingly felt that further delay in the trial proceedings would only result in procrastination of his suit.
The ground for making such a prayer was a newspaper report that when the Secretary of Delhi Bar Association shouted in open companyrt in the presence of all litigants asking Shri Dingier to stop working, the Judge did number accede to it and then filthy language was hurled in the companyrt to which other litigants present in the companyrt also raised their voice against such invidious vituperations, and that appellant was also one of such litigants.
