* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P.(C) No.43/2014 % 9th May, 2014 RAHUL GOYAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P.R. Chopra, Advocate.
Versus
PRATIBHA GOYAL ..... Respondent Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.8178/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of.
+ TR. P.(C) No.43/2014
2. This petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is totally misconceived because the provision of Section 24 CPC cannot be invoked because the Judge dealing with a case gives a comparative longer date i.e of two months because of the roster. If powers under Section 24 CPC are exercised in such a case, then, I am sure that in TP No.43/2014 Page 1 of 2 innumerable number of cases, this power will be prayed for being exercised for transfer of suits pending in different courts and which is not the object of Section 24 CPC. Also, it is not acceptable that the appellant can argue that the case must be transferred from one court to another simply because the existing court has a large number of cases. Cases which are fixed are as per the roster of the concerned Judge, and who is doing a particular number and type of cases as per the allocation of work, and consequently in such a situation there is no