Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
R.A. Perfumery Works Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Chandra Kishore Chaurasia - Respondent
FAO (COMM) 98 of 2021 & CM No. 17874 of 2021
Decided On : 04-06-2021
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. On the previous date, i.e., 01.06.2021, we had adjourned the matter to enable the parties to arrive at a settlement in the matter. 1.1. We are told that, an attempt was made in that behalf and proposals were exchanged, however, they did not fructify into a firm settlement.
2. Furthermore, as noted in the earlier order dated 01.06.2021, this appeal has been preferred against the ex-parte order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the trial Court in an application instituted by the respondent/plaintiff, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `CPC') in C.S. (COMM.) No. 132/2021 titled as Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. R. A. Perfumery Works Private Limited.
2.1. The appellant/defendant, we are told, has not filed a reply to the abovementioned application, as yet.
2.2. Given this position, Mr. Subhasis Sen Gupta, who appears on behalf of the appellant/defendant, says that liberty be given to withdraw the present appeal and approach the trial court for the adjudication of the abovementioned pending interlocutory application. Mr. Sen also seeks liberty to file a reply to the said application and/or file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC.
3. Given the aforesaid position, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant/defendant to file a reply to the abovementioned interlocutory application, and/or file a fresh application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, within one week of the receipt of the copy of the order.
3.1. The concerned trial court is directed to dispose of the pending interlocutory application and/or fresh application, if any, preferred by the appellant/defendant, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC at the earliest, though not later than three weeks of the pleadings being completed.
4. The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending application is also closed. The case papers shall be consigned to the record.
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.
Timely filing of replies to interlocutory applications and scheduling of the judge's consideration.
Court emphasizes the requirement of notifying intentions to create third-party rights in property pending adjudication of application, upholding status quo.
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 mandates the Tribunal to address pending applications promptly to ensure effective relief and maintain status quo for affected parties.
The court can advance hearing dates and allow service of documents via multiple means to expedite judicial proceedings.
Exparte order - Interlocutory application - To reopen the case and record further evidence after the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment is not permissible.
The court emphasized adherence to judicial precedents in administrative inquiries and recognized a respondent's right to pursue legal remedies following inquiry conclusions.
An application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act must be disposed of promptly, and financial support may be granted to the appellant pending the outcome of such applications.
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
