The importance of complying with judicial directions and the requirement for the Trial Court to first pass orders on the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 before considering other applications.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APPL. 10374/2023 & CM APPL. 10375/2023 (both for exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

CM(M) 341/2023 & CM APPL. 10373/2023 (for stay)

3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 25.02.2023 in CS No. 5820/18 titled “Bhai Sardar Singh vs. Bhai Trilochan Singh”, whereby the learned Trial Court has not passed orders on application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908, and has further kept the matter for 04.03.2023.

4. Mr. Gaurav Duggal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the only grievance raised in the present petition is noncompliance of the order dated 18.11.2019, whereby this Court in CM(M) 1086/2018 had recorded in sub para (c) of para 11, the fact that the defendants except defendant No.3, in the suit before the learned Trial Court, would be filing an application seeking their own deletion therefrom, which was corrected in Para 5 of order dated 27.11.2019.

5. Mr. Duggal submits that in pursuance thereto, an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 was filed immediately in December 2019.

6. Learned counsel also brings attention of this Court to order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court to submit that the arguments on the application under Order I Rule 10 was heard and was put up for passing orders thereon on 25.02.2023.

7. Learned counsel submits that on 25.02.2023, no orders were passed and in fact, applications under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 were taken up for consideration.

8. He further submits that the Trial Court, instead of passing orders on application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, posted the matter for hearing application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by respondent No.1.

9. Learned counsel submits that this was an infraction of the directions passed by this Court vide the order dated 18.11.2019.

10. Mr. Akshay Ringe, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the impugned order is sustainable in law for the reason that the Trial Court in its discretion thought it fit to take up the applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC having regard to the fact that the contentions raised under Order VII Rule 10 was with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the suit itself and submits that the suit itself would have been dismissed on that ground without the need to deal with application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, there being no suit at all.

11. Mr. Ringe further submits that the delay in disposal of the application under Order I Rule 10 is not for any reason attributable to respondent No.1.

12. Thus, the insistence on behalf of the petitioner as well as the other respondents before this Court, upon the learned Trial Court first passing orders on the application under Order I Rule 10 is untenable.

13. Learned counsel further submits that it appears from the reading of the impugned order that the learned Trial Court had exercised its jurisdiction and has concluded that it may be appropriate to take up and consider the applications under Order VII Rule 10 as well as under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC before passing orders on application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

14. This Court has considered the contentions raised by both the parties and has perused the impugned order as well as the orders filed on record.

15. It would be apposite to extract para 11 (c) of the order dated 18.11.2019, which is as under :-

“c) The Defendants except Defendant No.3, i.e., the Petitioner herein, submit that they would be seeking deletion in the suit in view of the settlement which has been entered into. The Trial Court shall take the settlement on record subject to recording the statements of all the parties or their authorised persons, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the terms recorded in the said settlement qua property bearing No.9A, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi