Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 14104
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J
RAMESH CHAND JAIN – Appellant
Versus
GHASI RAM JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AN – Respondent
CM(M) 2142/2024
RA.VISH CHANDRA PATHAK
The court emphasized the necessity for timely hearings of pending applications to uphold procedural fairness in legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 and Order XII Rule 6 - Petition impugning the order of the Trial Court regarding a pending application for hearing - The petitioner, a defendant, contended that the Trial Court failed to list his application for hearing before proceeding with the defendant's evidence - The court noted that the application was pending and directed the Trial Court to hear it on the next date. (Paras 1, 4, 8, 9)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The court emphasized the importance of timely hearings for pending applications to ensure fair trial rights are upheld. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 against the Trial Court's order, which did not list his application under Order XII Rule 6 for hearing, despite it being pending since 21.02.2024. The suit involved partition and permanent injunction initiated by the late Ghasi Ram Jain.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was pending and had not been addressed by the Trial Court, thus directing it to hear the application on the next scheduled date.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court had appropriately addressed the pending application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC before proceeding with the defendant's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Trial Court must hear the pending application to ensure procedural fairness and uphold the rights of the parties involved.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
% 10.04.2024
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ―CPC‖) has been filed impugning the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04 (South West), Dwarka Courts, Delhi, (hereinafter referred as ―Trial Court‖) in suit bearing no. CS ADJ 16857/2016 titled as ‗Ghasi Ram Jain vs. Padam Chand Jain and Ors’.
2. Petitioner herein is defendant no.3 before the learned Trial Court.
3. It is submitted that a suit for partition and permanent injunction was instituted by late Ghasi Ram Jain against respondent no.2, 3 (now deceased) and respondent no.4 on 14.08.2000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 21.02.2024, he had moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‗CPC‘) and notice to which was issued and accepted by the parties appearing in the suit. Matter was listed for reply, rejoinder of the application and but has not been listed for hearing thereafter. The matter was fixed for 12.03.2024. Learned counsel submits that the only grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court has not listed his application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for hearing, thus, directions be issued to the learned Trial Court to hear the said application before the defendant‘s evidence is to be examined.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 12.03.2024, matter could not be taken up and was taken up on 13.03.2024 and again the Court did not mention anything about the application pending under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Subsequently, the petitioner had moved an application on 21.03.2024 seeking early disposal of his application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC which was taken up on 22.03.2024, however, the court has not passed any orders either on the early hearing application or specified that when the application moved on behalf of the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC shall be taken up for disposal and has proceeded to record defendants evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents takes objection to the said submissions and contends that on 13.03.2024, the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC may have been taken up for consideration, however, the counsel for the petitioner withdrew his Vakalatnama and the matter was posted for 19.03.2024. It is also submitted that after the Vakalatnama was withdrawn, the petitioner has himself requested before the learned Trial Court on 13.03.2024 time to engage a suitable advocate within a period of two weeks. Moreso, in the application for early hearing, he has mentioned that to address arguments on the application, a nearest possible date within a week be granted. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned Trial Court could not take up the said application for hearing.
7. It is also submitted that matter is fixed before the learned Trial Court on 12.04.2024.
8. The orders of the learned Trial Court including the impugned order perused and it is apparent that an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is pending disposal for which replies have already been placed on record, however, the said application has not been taken up for hearing by the learned Trial Court and no date has been mentioned that when the same shall be taken up for hearing though the matter is listed for defendants evidence.
9. Keeping in view the above submissions, the learned Trial Court to also take up the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for hearing on the next date of hearing before it i.e. 12.04.2024.
10. No further directions are required.
11. With above observations, petition as well as pending applications stand disposed of.
