Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Sh. Vijender Kumar Sharma (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. - Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr. - Respondents
CM(M) 1370 of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2023
Expedite Trial - Civil Procedure - The court directed the Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of an application filed by the defendants under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in order to ensure the trial proceeds in a timely manner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the disposal of an application filed by the defendants under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the trial had been stalled for nine years.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Trial Court to decide the application filed by the respondents under Order IX Rule 7 CPC within one month from the specified date, in accordance with the law.
Issues: Expedited disposal of application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely resolution of procedural matters to ensure the expeditious conduct of trials.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions to the Trial Court to decide the application filed by the respondents under Order IX Rule 7 CPC within one month from the specified date.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 43419/2023 (for exemption)
Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
CM(M) 1370/2023
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks appropriate direction to the ADJ, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court'), to expeditiously dispose of an application filed by the defendants i.e., Respondents herein under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC').
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in this petition, he is seeking a limited direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial.
2.1. He states that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the only two defendants in the civil suit.
2.2. He states that the suit was filed in the year 2014 and the said two Respondents were proceeded ex parte on 22.08.2017. He states that thereafter Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Order IX Rule 7, CPC on 20.03.2018, however, they have not come forward to address arguments on their application and therefore the proceedings before the Trial Court have been stalled.
2.3. He prays that a direction be issued to the Trial Court to decide the said application filed by the defendants in a time bound manner so that the trial can proceed. He states that the matter is next listed before the Trial Court on 07.10.2023.
3. None appears on behalf of the Respondents despite advance service.
4. This Court has perused the order sheet of the Trial Court placed on record. The submissions of the Petitioner are duly borne out from the orders of the Trial Court. The matter has remained pending at the stage of pleadings for nine (9) years.
5. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Trial Court is requested to hear and decide the application filed by the Respondents under Order IX Rule 7 CPC preferably within one (1) month from 07.10.2023, the date already fixed before the Trial Court; in accordance with law.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the rival contentions of the parties with respect to Order IX Rule 7 CPC application filed by the Respondents before the Trial Court.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
Timely resolution of procedural matters is essential for the expeditious conduct of trials.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Trial Court should decide an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before proceeding with the trial, as emphasized by the Supreme ....
The court's discretion in permitting written statements and granting adjournments should be exercised judiciously, and unnecessary adjournments should be avoided under Order 17 CPC.
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) ....
Litigants are generally not permitted to seek adjournments before the trial court and then invoke the High Court's jurisdiction for expediting proceedings, but specific considerations may warrant exp....
The High Court can direct the trial court to expedite proceedings under specific circumstances, but litigants must not abuse adjournment processes.
Judicial discretion under procedural rules should prioritize substantive justice over mere technicalities, enabling courts to decide applications on their merits.
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.
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
