Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Poonam Malhotra - Appellant
Versus
Vishal Goel - Respondent
CM(M) 1050 of 2022 & CM Appl. 43804 of 2022
Decided On : 27-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of order under article 227 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. application rejections and implications (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's direction for hearing application (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. order of disposal outlined (Para 7 , 8) |
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 22nd August 2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS DJ 10133/16 (Vishal Goel vs. Poonam Malhotra).
2. The opening paragraph of the impugned order reveals that the learned ADJ was seized of two applications filed by the petitioner, as Defendant 1 in the suit. One was under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and the second was under Order VIII Rule 10(A)(3) of the CPC.
3. The impugned order, however, while rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, does not specifically pass any order on the application under Order VIII Rule 10(A)(3), though Mr. Ravi Kant Chadha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that, with the rejection of the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17, the fate of the application under Order VIII Rule 10(A)(3) was pre-ordained, as the said application was merely consequential to the application under Order VI Rule 17.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, needless to say, would dispute this contention.
5. This Court does not express any opinion on this aspect, as it would be appropriate that the learned ADJ takes a view on the application under Order VIII Rule 10(A)(3) in the first instance.
6. Accordingly, with consent of parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned ADJ to take up the application of the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 10(A)(3) of the CPC for hearing on 4th November 2022 and pass orders on the said application on the same day or as expeditiously thereafter as possible. 6. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the said application. Both sides would be at liberty to advance all submissions on the application as they deem appropriate.
7. The learned Local Commissioner before whom the matter is listed tomorrow is requested to take up the matter after 4th November 2022.
8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
The court emphasized the necessity for independent consideration of applications under procedural rules, regardless of the outcomes of interconnected applications.
The importance of complying with judicial directions and the requirement for the Trial Court to first pass orders on the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 before considering other ap....
The court affirmed that jurisdiction and suit valuations must be based solely on amended pleadings in accordance with procedural laws, rejecting external assertions not contained in the plaint.
The court determined the impropriety of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, reiterating it does not constitute an execution petition.
Courts must provide reasoned orders when deciding procedural applications to uphold fair trial rights and ensure proper judicial process.
The court emphasizes the necessity of conducting an inquiry under Section 47 CPC concerning the rival contentions regarding impleadment of parties in execution proceedings.
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
