The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) for entertaining appeals under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is limited to orders passed under Sections 343 and 347B of the Act, and not orders passed under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 CPC or any interlocutory order.

JUDGMENT :

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. This reference being O.REF. 1/2017 has been made by the learned District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) under Order XLVI of the Code of Civil Procedure on 11th December, 2017 with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court of District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) Delhi for entertaining appeals under Section 347 D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Act in Short).

2. The facts which arises for consideration on the reference are that the appellant Senjil Gupta has filed an Appeal before the District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) under Section 347D of the Act challenging an order dated June 5, 2015 passed by Smt. Raj Rani Mittra, Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) in Appeal No. 1156/ATMCD/2013 titled as Vishni Hingorani v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. Vide the said order, ATMCD has dismissed an application filed by the appellant Senjil Gupta Under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 CPC. It is noted that appellant Senjil Gupta had also filed an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the said application, it is mentioned that against the impugned order dated June 5, 2015, the appellant had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) 9244/2015 before this Court. Notice was issued in the said writ petition and after response from the counsel for the respondent MCD, this Court decided the writ petition vide order dated 14th September, 2016 and granted liberty to the appellant to approach the court of District and Sessions Judge (HQs) against the impugned order dated June 5, 2015. Pursuant thereto, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the District and Sessions Judge (HQs) on September 28, 2016 and the same was registered as an MCD Appeal No. 3074/2016 and is pending in the said Court. On January 3, 2017, it was informed to the appellate court that respondent no.3 had expired and steps were taken to implead his legal heirs. An application to implead the legal heirs of the deceased / respondent no.3 was allowed vide order dated May 17, 2017 and amended memo of parties was taken on record.

3. Vide order dated June 5, 2015, ATMCD disposed of the application under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 CPC and it is the view of the learned District and Sessions Judge in the reference made that the said order is not covered under sub-section 1 of Section 347D of the Act which gives power to the District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to hear appeals only against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal either confirming, modifying or annulling orders made or notices issued under the Act. It is stated that the impugned order dated June 5, 2015 is neither confirming, nor modifying nor annulling an order made, or notice issued under the Act. The question of law, which has been posed by the learned District and Sessions Judge reads as under:

1. Whether the Administrator (here in this case the District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi) has the power to hear appeals against order of the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (ATMCD) restricted only to the orders of the Appellate Tribunal by which the orders made or notices issued under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 have been either confirmed or modified or annulled as provided under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957? Or

2. Whether the Administrator (here in this case the District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) Tis Hazari Court), Delhi is empowered to hear appeals as a regular Appellate Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against all orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the appeals pending before the said Tribunal passed during the course of hearing, the appeals including the impugned order by which the application under Order XII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the applicant / appellant was dismissed, as observed by this court in W.P.(C)