DELHI HIGH COURT
ASHA MENON
Manju Rani – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Property Dealer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in handling case; urgency. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's directive for expeditious trial. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. petition disposed with directions. (Para 6) |
ORDER
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Asha Menon, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.19653/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stand disposed of.
CM (M) 417/2021
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Court dated 5th June, 2021 in Civil Suit No. 95251/2016 thereby declining to treat the matter as urgent for early listing.
2. Ms. Komal Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached this Court twice before as litigation in this case had commenced in the year 1988 and the matter was not being taken up for hearing by the Trial Court and vide two orders dated 11th October, 2019 and 3rd March, 2021, this Court had directed the learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Yet, it is submitted by learned counsel, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for early hearing of the matter as en-bloc dates were being given in not so urgent matters.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner infor
The court mandated the expeditious disposal of prolonged litigation, emphasizing compliance with prior directives on urgency and the procedural handling regarding deceased respondents.
Emphasis on expeditious disposal of cases in prolonged litigation and adherence to previous court directions.
The court emphasized the discretion of the lower court in managing procedural applications, including the denial of an early hearing for a pending writ petition.
Expeditious disposal of civil suits requires extraordinary urgency; routine requests cannot be prioritized without justifiable cause.
Courts should direct timely hearings to prevent delays from adversely affecting the rights of petitioners and operational efficiency of organizations.
The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of applications under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC to prevent prejudicial effects on the petitioner.
Court addressed procedural delays in hearings and clarified that opinions on merits were not expressed in the disposal of the appeal.
The court emphasized the necessity for the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation in light of previous judicial decisions, ensuring timely redressal without dictating the outcome.
The court may decline to interfere in a case, considering the pendency of numerous cases and the need for expeditious disposal.
The right to sue survives against other defendants when one defendant passes away, and the court has the power to exempt the plaintiff from substituting the legal representatives of non-contesting de....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.