Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Ashok Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Krishan Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) 2062 of 2023, CM APPL. 64737 of 2023 & CM APPL. 64738 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Article 227 - Civil Suit Order Challenge - The court dismissed the petition challenging the order of the Trial Court in a civil suit, stating that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the orders passed by the Trial Court in a civil suit, including an application under Order 39, Rule 2A, CPC and a review application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the remedy for the petitioner, in this case, is to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) CPC and dismissed the petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the orders passed by the Trial Court in a civil suit and the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the order was passed by the Trial Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC, the remedy for the petitioner is to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) CPC.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail his appropriate remedy in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 64738/2023 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 2062/2023, CM APPL. 64737/2023
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Additonal District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in a civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 618788/16 titled as `Krishan Kumar v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.', whereby the Trial Court had disposed of an application filed by the Respondent No. 2 herein, under Order 39, Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') and issued directions to the Station House Officer (SHO) for ensuring compliance of the directions contained therein.
2. The Petitioner has also impugned the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in the said civil suit, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner seeking review of the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 has been dismissed by the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has entered appearance on advance notice and states that the Petitioner has not disclosed the Trial Court's order dated 17.03.2023, where similar objections raised by the Petitioner to the implementation of the order dated 24.01.2023 have been dismissed.
3.1. He states that since the order dated 17.03.2023 has not been challenged, the Petitioner is precluded from maintaining any challenge to the impugned order dated 24.01.2023.
4. This Court is of the opinion that since the order dated 24.01.2023 was passed by the Trial Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC, the remedy, if any, of the Petitioner herein is to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) CPC.
5. This petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty reserved to the Petitioner to avail his appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Pending application stands disposed of.
6. Needless to state that the rights and contentions of the Respondent No.1 as regards to the maintainability of the said appeal in view of the order dated 17.03.2023 shall remain open.
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) ....
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 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.
The petitioner cannot be left remediless due to the non-decision on the application for stay filed in the appeal.
Timely resolution of procedural matters is essential for the expeditious conduct of trials.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence produced by the parties cannot be considered in the absence of pleading, and parties should not be permitted to travel beyond their p....
The acceptance of the correctness of a judgment and decree precludes seeking relief in subsequent proceedings, and abusing the legal process by filing successive applications seeking to stall executi....
The defect of non-filing of the statement of truth in a plaint can be curable, and the court may allow the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
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
