IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Sachin Jain - Appellant
Versus
Shree Gadia Engineering Works - Respondent
FAO (COMM) 187 of 2021
Decided On : 25-11-2021
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Interlocutory Orders
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against an interlocutory order of the District Judge, which issued summons in a suit without granting ex-parte relief to the appellant. The appellant sought to expedite the hearing of applications related to the suit. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The court granted an expedited hearing date for the applications, allowing flexibility in service to the respondent. (Para 4.2)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the court should grant an ex-parte injunction and advance the hearing date in the existing applications. (Para 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of progressing the case efficiently, thereby advancing the hearing date and ensuring communication with the opposite party through permissible means. (Para 4.2)
Result: Appeal allowed to the extent that the hearing date was advanced to 06.12.2021.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)
CM No.42085/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
FAO (COMM) 187/2021
CM No.42086/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the respondent]
CM No.42087/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant for appointment of local commissioner]
CM No. 42088/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking exemption from serving the appeal to the respondent]
CM No.42084/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking exemption from filing notarized affidavits and original signed documents]
2. This appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 17.11.2021, passed by the Learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS (COMM) No. 4389/2021, in the applications moved by the appellant/plaintiff, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Ms Kangan Roda, who appears for the appellant/plaintiff, says that, the appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the fact that no ex-parte orders were passed in the aforementioned applications.
3.1. Ms Roda, however, realises the fact that the aforementioned applications are still alive, although the next date for hearing in the suit as well as the aforesaid applications is 20.12.2021.
4. Via the impugned order, the Learned District judge has issued summons in the suit as also notice in the aforementioned applications.
4.1. Ms Roda says that, if the date of hearing is advanced, for the moment, it will serve the appellant/plaintiff's purpose.
4.2. Given the foregoing, we are inclined to grant expedited hearing in the aforementioned applications.
4.3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the date of hearing in the matter, which is listed for hearing before the Learned District Judge on 20.12.2021, is now advanced to 06.12.2021.
5. In the meanwhile, the appellant/plaintiff will take steps to serve the respondent/defendant.
5.1. Liberty is given to the appellant/plaintiff to serve the respondent via all permissible modes, including e-mail.
5.2. A copy of the order passed by us today will accompany the summons in the suit and notice.
5.3. Consequently, the date fixed by the Learned District judge i.e., 20.12.2021, shall stand cancelled.
6. The Registry will dispatch a copy of this order to the concerned Court.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
8. Insofar as the prayer made in CM No.42084/2021 to grant exemption from filing notarized affidavits is concerned, the applicant/appellant is directed to file duly notarized affidavits within ten days from today, notwithstanding the order passed by us today.
9. Consequently, pending applications shall also stand closed.