Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Manoj Bajpai (Dr.) - Appellant
Versus
Seema Jassal - Respondent
CM(M) 305 of 2022 and CM Appl. 16578 of 2022 (Exemption)
Decided On : 04-04-2022
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Headnote
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - Exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to interfere lightly in the trial court’s discretion, particularly regarding adjournments and procedural conduct of the parties. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks a direction for the application under Order XII Rule 6 to be decided expeditiously; the respondent has been granted multiple adjournments which led to this petition.
Findings of Court:
The High Court emphasizes the importance of timely adjudication while respecting trial court procedures.
Issues: The main issue addressed is the appropriateness of the petitioner seeking expedited resolution after previously requesting adjournments.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court maintains that while litigants must adhere to procedural norms, requests for expeditious hearings under specific circumstances can be granted, emphasizing the necessity of judicial efficiency without imposing rigid timelines.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. exemption application allowed, disposed of. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition seeks expedited decision on application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. high court's jurisdiction on adjournments discussed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court issues no time-bound direction. (Para 7) |
ORDER(Oral)
CM APPL. 16578/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 305/2022
3. This petition seeks a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ("the learned ADJ") to decide, expeditiously, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for decreeing the suit on admissions.
4. It is seen that, out of five occasions on which the matter was listed before the learned ADJ for hearing of arguments on the application, dates were taken by the petitioner on two occasions.
5. It is ordinarily not permissible for a litigant to seek adjournments before the trial court and, thereafter, invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking expediting of the proceedings.
6. Nonetheless, as the prayer in the petition merely relates to an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which essentially involves consideration of the issue of whether there are admissions by the defendant, sufficient to justify decreeing of the suit, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned ADJ to decide the application as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the position of his board and the priority of matters before him.
7. It is made clear that this Court is not issuing any time bound direction.
