Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Sameer Garg – Respondent
CM(M) 1375 of 2023 & CM APPL. 43638 of 2023
Decided On : 24-08-2023
Expedite - Civil Appeal - The court directed the Appellate Court to expeditiously decide the Regular Civil Appeal and the pending interim application, ensuring that the petitioner is not left remediless due to non-decision on the application for stay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the Appellate Court to expeditiously decide the Regular Civil Appeal and the pending interim application.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Appellate Court to take up and decide the application under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, ensuring that the petitioner is not left remediless due to the non-decision on the application for stay.
Issues: Delay in deciding the appeal and the application for stay filed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner cannot be left remediless due to the non-decision on the application for stay filed in the appeal.
Final Decision: The court directed the Appellate Court to take up and decide the application under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC and the appeal itself, if deemed appropriate, to ensure the petitioner is not left remediless.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 43639/2023 (For Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1375/2023
1. This petition has been filed under 227 pf the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Additional District Judge - 04 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Appellate Court') to expeditiously decide the Regular Civil Appeal (RCA) bearing no. 44/2023 alongwith the pending interim application therein.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in this petition, the Petitioner is seeking a limited relief for the disposal of the appeal or atleast the application filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (`CPC') seeking stay of the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS No. 251/2023.
2.1. He states that the Respondent has filed a contempt petition bearing Misc DJ No. 155/2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC before the Trial Court and the Petitioner despite having approached the Appellate Court has not been heard either on the application seeking interim relief or the final appeal.
3. This Court has perused the Petition and heard the counsel for the Petitioner.
4. This Court has been apprised that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is listed before the Trial Court on 21.11.2023, whereas, the appeal is listed before the Appellate Court on 17.11.2023.
5. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has availed its appellate remedy it cannot be left remediless due to the non-decision on the application for stay filed in the appeal.
6. Accordingly, the Appellate Court is requested to take up and decide the application under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC on 17.11.2023, in view of the fact that the Petitioner herein has to appear before the Trial Court on 21.11.2023 in the application filed by the Respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
7. The Appellate Court is also at liberty to decide the appeal itself on 17.11.2023, if it so deems appropriate.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
9. Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
The petitioner cannot be left remediless due to the non-decision on the application for stay filed in the appeal.
The main legal point established is that the appropriate remedy for challenging orders passed by the Trial Court in a civil suit is to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) ....
Timely resolution of procedural matters is essential for the expeditious conduct of trials.
The need for the Trial Court to decide the application of the Petitioner on its own merits and the imposition of legal costs as a condition for the liberty granted.
Order passed under Rule 13 of Order 9 of CPC rejecting application for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte, appeal would lie under Order XLIII Rule 1 (d) of CPC.
The court has the authority to grant directions to expedite the process of hearing and disposing of pending applications in accordance with relevant court rules and circulars.
A tribunal cannot vacate an interim order in contempt jurisdiction that was granted in an original application without proper procedure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
