Allowed

Vrinda Grover & Anr. v. Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Oct 2017CM(M)/1153/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a civil court's failure to expeditiously dispose of an interim application under CPC Order XXXIX. The High Court directed the Additional District Judge to list the matter for hearing within one month and dispose of the application by mid-November.

What did the court decide?

Suited to be listed for hearing on or before 3 November 2017; Advocate General's application disposed of.

Vrinda Grover & Anr. Vs Dr Rajendra Kumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ CM(M) 1153/2017
VRINDA GROVER & ANR Through: Vers	..... Petitioners Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv. for P-1. Ms. Rebecca Mammen John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kushdeep Gaur and Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Advs. for P-2. us
DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR P	ACHAURI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through:	Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashish Dixit, Mr. Kartik Bhardwaj, Mr. Jaideep Singh, Ms. Piyusha Singh and Mr. Sarthak Katyal, Advs. for R- 1. Mr. Rohan Malik, Adv. for R-2.
	Mr. Sarojanand Jha, Mr. Biswajit
	Choudhury, Advs. for R-3.
	Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Mr. Uyom Raghuvanshi, Advs. for R-4. Mr. C.M. Goyal, Adv. for R-5.

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

¶5

% 17.10.2017 CM No.37382/2017 (for exemption)

¶6

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶7

The application is disposed of.

¶8

CM(M) 1153/2017 & CM No.37381/2017 (for stay)

¶9

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ) (New Delhi), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to expeditiously dispose of the application CM(M) 1153/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶10

of the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in CS No.57510/2016 and on which adinterim order was made as far back as on 25^th February, 2017.

¶11

The learned ADJ has vide order dated 19^th September, 2017 posted the said application for consideration on 31^st March, 2018, reasoning that he is busy in disposing of ten years old cases and in ripening the five years old cases in accordance with the directions of the State Court Management Systems Committee of this Court.

¶12

It is the contention of the senior counsels for the petitioners that the arguments have been heard on the application on several dates and in fact at one stage orders were also reserved on the application but the same was put up for re-hearing.

¶13

The senior counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff appearing on advance notice cannot possibly have any objection to the order sought, inasmuch as the CPC requires the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of CPC to be disposed of within thirty days.

¶14

As far as the reasoning given by the learned ADJ for long adjournment to 31^st March, 2018 is concerned, if the learned ADJ has workload in excess, he is at liberty to approach the District Judge / this Court, on administrative side, for re-allocation of work.

¶15

The petition is thus allowed to the following extent:

¶16

(I) The suit be listed before the ADJ on 24^th October, 2017 for fixing of a date for hearing of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC. The said date be, on or before 3^rd November, 2017:

¶17

CM(M) 1153/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶18

(II) All counsels in the suit are directed to complete their arguments on the said application on the date so fixed by the learned ADJ, within one hour and it is stipulated that the respondent No.1/plaintiff shall have half an hour for arguments and all the other counsel for the defendants, together shall have the remaining half an hour. Liberty is given to the counsels to present on the same day, if so desire, written arguments not exceeding three pages each.

¶19

The learned ADJ is requested to dispose of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of CPC on or before 15^th November, 2017. 10. The senior counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff has complained about the excessive and lengthy cross-examination by the counsels for the defendants.

¶20

However, in the absence of the material in that respect before this Court, the same cannot be considered.

¶21

The counsels to place a copy of this order before the learned ADJ today in the post-lunch session.

¶22

A copy of this order be made available under the signatures of the Court Master to the counsels during lunch time.

¶23

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶24

OCTOBER 17, 2017 Bs..

¶25

Page 3 of 3

¶26

CM(M) 1153/2017

Vrinda Grover & Anr. v. Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vrinda Grover & Anr. v. Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rekha & Ors.

M/S Arsons India & Anr. Vs Manoj Kumar Garg

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs Gunjan Juneja

Maheesh Malik Vs M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited

M/S Biba Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Hi-Tech Carbon

Gurcharan Kaur & Ors. Vs Ranjeet Singh Sandhu

M/S Mmtc Ltd. Vs M/S Shirdi Overseas

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Harbans Kaur ( Since Deceased) Thr Legal Heirs & Anr.

Lata Raghav Vs Pradeep Raghav

Usha Devi & Ors. Vs M/S Adish Goods Transport Co. & Anr.

Pardeep Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vikas Phogat Vs Secretary Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Rohit Vs Union of India and Ors.