In a rent control dispute pending before the trial court in New Delhi, Narinder Khullar challenged an order that suddenly released the case from the stage of judgment after the original judge had already heard full final arguments on 21 August 2025, reserved the matter for decision on 17 September 2025, and listed it several times for pronouncement without delivering the verdict. The predecessor judge was transferred on 17 October 2025 to another court, but the High Court’s transfer order clearly required all officers to pronounce any reserved judgments within two to three weeks regardless of the new posting. On 3 January 2026 the predecessor judge instead released the file back to the successor court, claiming some clarifications were still needed and further arguments should be heard. The High Court examined the record, noted that the matter had remained reserved for nearly four months without any valid reason for rehearing, and relied on earlier rulings holding that once arguments are concluded and a case is reserved, the same judge must pronounce judgment to avoid delay and comply with transfer rules. The court therefore set aside the release order and directed the entire file to be sent back to the predecessor judge, now posted as CJM at Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, solely for pronouncement of the judgment.
Title: NARINDER KHULLAR versus SUNNY CHAURASIA, Order date: 01.04.2026, Case Number: CM(M) 405/2026, Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2702, Name of court and Judge: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
