IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited - Appellant
Versus
Frankfinn Aviation Services (pvt.) Ltd - Respondent
First Appeal From Order (OS) (COMM) No. 33, 34 of 2022
Decided On : 09-02-2022
Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC - Interlocutory Applications - The court directed the respondent to file a reply to the appellant's application within ten days and vice versa, and set a date for the judge to consider the applications.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were against a common order passed in interlocutory applications filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and Rule 2a of CPC in a suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the parties to file replies to each other's applications within specified timelines and set a date for the judge to consider the applications.
Issues: Interlocutory applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and Rule 2a of CPC, timelines for filing replies, and scheduling of the judge's consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the parties to file replies within specified timelines and set a date for the judge to consider the applications.
Final Decision: The court directed the parties to file replies within specified timelines and scheduled a date for the judge to consider the applications.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM aPPL. 7299/2022 in FaO(OS) (COMM) 33/2022
CM aPPL. 7302/2022 in FaO(OS) (COMM) 34/2022
1. allowed, subject to just exceptions.
FaO(OS) (COMM) 33/2022 and CM aPPLs. 7297-98/2022
FaO(OS) (COMM) 34/2022 and CM aPPL. 7300-01/2022
2. Inter alia, the above-captioned appeals are directed against the common order dated 02.02.2022, passed by the learned single judge in the appellant's application, preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short 'CPC') i.e., I.a. 1670/2022, and in respondent's application, filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2a of CPC i.e., I.a. 1795/2022. Both the applications have been preferred in a suit filed by the respondent i.e., CS(COMM) 54/2022.
2.1. Via the impugned order, the learned single judge has issued notice in the aforementioned interlocutory applications and given opportunity to the contesting side to file a reply. The applications have been listed by the learned single judge, on 07.03.2022.
3. Given the foregoing, counsels for the parties are agreed that the above-captioned appeals can be disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondent will file a reply to the appellant's application preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC i.e., I.a. No.1670/2022, within ten days from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed by the appellant, within one week of the reply being served.
(ii) The appellant will file a reply to the respondent's application preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 2a of CPC i.e., I.a. No.1795/2022, within ten days from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed by the respondent, within one week of the reply being served.
(iii) The appellant's application i.e., I.a. No.1670/2022, and I.a. No.1188/2022, which is filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, will be taken up by the learned single judge, in the first instance, on the date already fixed i.e., 07.03.2022, and if, for any reason, it is not possible to take up these applications on the said date, the same will be taken up on a date which is proximate to the given date.
(iiia) Once the learned single judge has taken a view qua the aforementioned applications, he will, then, deal with the respondent's application i.e., I.a. No.1795/2022, which has been filed, as noticed above, under Order XXXIX Rule 2a of CPC.
3.1. It is ordered accordingly.
4. It is made clear that nothing stated hereinabove will impact the decision in any of the applications, referred to hereinabove, which are pending consideration before the learned single judge.
5. Consequently, pending applications shall stand closed.
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.
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 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 emphasized the necessity for expediting trial proceedings in CPC applications concerning judgments on admissions and interim relief, establishing clear timelines for evidence submission and....
The court can advance hearing dates and allow service of documents via multiple means to expedite judicial proceedings.
The court has the authority to issue specific directions to maintain the status quo and prevent changes in disputed properties during the pendency of an interlocutory application.
A trial court must address all claims for interim relief, and any failure to adequately consider such claims necessitates appellate intervention.
Point of law : An order of rejection of application which application is made under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC would also be an order made under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC- As such appeal would lie....
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.