Transferred judicial officers must pronounce reserved judgments and cannot release matters for rehearing by successor courts.

The petitioner challenged an order dated January 3, 2026, passed by a Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller ("predecessor judge") in RC ARC No. 5135/16.

Final arguments in the matter concluded on August 20, 2025, and the case was reserved for judgment on September 17, 2025.

Subsequently, the predecessor judge was transferred via an official notification dated October 17, 2025.

Despite being listed multiple times for pronouncement, the predecessor judge eventually released the matter from the stage of judgment on January 3, 2026, citing the need for "clarifications" and the fact of their transfer, directing the file to be sent to a successor judge for further proceedings.

The petitioner contended this would cause undue delay and violated the High Court’s transfer guidelines.

1. Whether a judicial officer who has reserved a judgment prior to transfer is obligated to pronounce the same notwithstanding their relocation to a different court.

2. Whether the predecessor judge was justified in releasing the case from the stage of judgment for "clarifications" after the matter had been reserved for a considerable period.

The Court primarily applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.

It relied on the administrative mandate of Transfer Order No. 41/DHC/Gaz/G-7/VI.E.2(a)/2025, specifically Note 2, which requires transferred officers to notify cases with reserved judgments and pronounce orders within 2-3 weeks of relinquishing charge.

Furthermore, the Court followed the precedent set in Parvesh Mann @ Sagar Mann v. State (NCT of Delhi) and B.D. Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., which establish that once final arguments are heard, a judge is bound to pronounce judgment to avoid defeating the mandate of transfer orders and causing avoidable delays.

The Court observed that the matter remained reserved for judgment for approximately four months with the predecessor judge.

It found the predecessor judge’s reasoning—that "clarifications" were necessary—to be unjustified given the length of time the case was held.

The Court reasoned that directing a rehearing by a successor judge not only violates the specific instructions contained in the High Court’s transfer order but also imposes an unnecessary burden on the judiciary and litigants by duplicating efforts.

The High Court emphasized that the transfer order expressly permits and requires judicial officers to pronounce judgments in matters reserved before their transfer, "notwithstanding the posting/transfer".

The Court directed that RC ARC 5135/16 be transferred from the South East District (Saket Courts) to the predecessor judge, currently posted as CJM, Shahdara (Karkardooma Courts), specifically for the purpose of pronouncing the judgment.

The petition was disposed of with directions for immediate compliance.