IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Ravinder Parkash Punj - Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Aggarwal & Anr. - Respondents
First Appeal From Order (COMM) No. 32 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 10712-1071213 of 2022
Decided On : 02-03-2022
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC - Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC - Directions issued for expedited trial
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the order disposing of the appellant's application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and respondent no. 1's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The appellant concedes that no appeal would lie against the rejection of their application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court heard the counsel for the parties and decided to expedite the trial. Directions were issued for filing affidavits of evidence, fixing dates for cross-examination of witnesses, and concluding the trial within a specified timeframe.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disposal of the applications under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, and the decision to expedite the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to expedite the trial and ensure timely conclusion of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with directions for expediting the trial and concluding the proceedings within a specified timeframe.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Issue notice.
1.1. Mr Pramod Singhal accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.01.2022, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
2.1. Via order dated 29.01.2022, the learned District Judge has disposed of the appellant's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') as well as respondent no. 1's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC.
2.2. Mr Raman Gandhi, who appears on behalf of the appellant, fairly concedes that no appeal would lie against that part of the order dated 29.01.2022, whereby the appellant's application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC was rejected.
2.3. Mr Gandhi, thus, says that this appeal should be treated as an appeal confined to the latter part of the impugned order, in which directions were issued on respondent no. 1's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
3. Concerning the aforesaid aspect of the matter, we have heard the counsel for the parties at some length.
3.1. Given the fact that the issues have been framed, counsel for the parties are agreed that the best way forward would be to expedite trial in the matter.
3.2. accordingly, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions.
(i) The appellant will file the affidavit(s) of evidence concerning his witness(es), within the next three [3] weeks.
(ii) Respondent no.1 will file the affidavit(s) of evidence of his witness(es), within three [3] weeks of the witness testimony(ies) being filed on behalf of the appellant.
(iii) Since we are told that respondent no. 2 has already been proceeded ex parte, no directions are issued qua respondent no. 2.
(iv). Once the affidavit of evidence of witness(es) is filed, the learned District Judge will fix the dates for cross-examination of witnesses.
(v) The aforesaid exercise will be completed, within the next ten [10] weeks.
(vi) The learned District Judge will endeavour to conclude the trial and render a judgment in the matter, on or before 31.05.2022.
(vi) Lastly, the appellant shall abide by the directions issued qua him via order dated 29.01.2022, during the pendency of the suit.
4. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of this order.
5. Consequently, pending applications shall stand closed.
The main legal principle established is the court's authority to issue directions for expediting the trial and ensuring timely conclusion of proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity for expediting trial proceedings in CPC applications concerning judgments on admissions and interim relief, establishing clear timelines for evidence submission and....
Timely filing of replies to interlocutory applications and scheduling of the judge's consideration.
The court established procedural directives on filing replies to interlocutory applications to ensure timely adjudication without affecting final decisions.
Compliance with court orders is critical; repeated failure to follow procedural directions justifies denial of applications seeking relief from prior court decisions.
Timely resolution of procedural matters is essential for the expeditious conduct of trials.
The court permits withdrawal of an appeal against an ex-parte order to allow the appellant to pursue proper procedural remedies at the trial court.
The court can advance hearing dates and allow service of documents via multiple means to expedite judicial proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the applicability of each provision in different s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.