Dismissed

Sharven Kumar Mohan v. Saroj Jain Alias Sweety & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Nov 2018FAO(OS)/325/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain intra-Court appeals against single Judge orders passed under Section 24 CPC, as Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 does not cover such orders under 'ordinary original civil jurisdiction' except for high-value suits.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed as not maintainable under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

Sharven Kumar Mohan Vs Saroj Jain Alias… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

¶3

versus

¶4

SAROJJAIN ALIAS SWEETY& ANR Respondents Through: : Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gayatri Misra, Advocate.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI ORDER

¶7

¶8

12.11.2018

¶9

These five intra-Court appeals invoking appellatejurisdiction under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, impugn order dated 30^*^ August, 2017 in TR.P.(C.) 109/2017,Saroj versus Sarwan Kumar Mohan and Another; order dated 10^'^ October,2017 in TR.P.(C.) \62I20\1,Saroj versus Sarwan Mohan and order dated 17^^ November, 2017 in T.P.(C) 178/2017,Saroj versusSarwan Kumar Mohan and Another passedby the learned single Judge under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908 ('Code'for short).

¶10

It is an accepted and admitted position that impugned orders are not appealable under Section 104 of the Code.

¶11

Reliance is placed by the appellants on Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 ('DHC Act' for short), which reads as under:"10. Powers of Judges:

¶12

(1) Where a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by sub- section (2) of section 5 on that Court, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the single Judge to a Division Court of that High Court.

¶13

Page 2 of 5

¶14

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (1), the law in force immediately before the appointed day relating to the powers of the Chief Justice, single Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Punjab and with respect to all matters ancillary to the exercise of those powers, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court of Delhi."

¶15

Sub-section 1 to Section 10 of the DHC Act applies to order(s) passed by the single Judge of the High Court in exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by sub-section (2) to Section 5 of the DHC Act. 5. Section 5(2) of the DHC Act reads as under:-

¶16

"5. Jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi:

¶17

(1)The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union territory of Delhi, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of the said territories by the High Court of Punjab.

¶18

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds rupees two crore."

¶19

Sub-section (2) to Section 5 of the DHC Act states that the Delhi High Court shall exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction, in respect of suits of specified value.

¶20

A conjoint reading of the sub-section (1) to Section 10 and sub section (2) of Section 5 of the DHC Act would show that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 10 can be exercisedin relationto original suits

¶21

Page 3 of 5

¶22

pendingbeforethe singleJudge of this Court and in respectof which single Judges of this Court exerciseordinaryoriginal civil jurisdictionin view of the stipulated pecuniary value. It would not cover and include order(s) passedby the singlejudge in exerciseof other 'ordinaryciviljurisdiction'. 7. In view of the statutoryprovisionsin the DHC Act, decisionof the Kerala High Court in K. V. Balan versusSivagiriSree NarayanaDharma Sanghom Trust & Ors., AIR 2006 Kerala 58 cited by the appellants,which had examinedprovisionsof Section5 ofthe KeralaHigh CourtAct, 1958, is not applicable.In K.V. Balan (supra) full bench of the Kerala High Court had noticedthe differenceof languageand scope of Section 10 of the DHC Act and Section5 of the KeralaHigh CourtAct.

¶23

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that these appeals before the DivisionBench are not maintainableas we do not have jurisdictionunder Section 10(1) of the DHC Act over the order(s)passed under Section24 of the Code.

¶24

At this stage, learnedcounsel for the appellantsstates that they would have no objectionin case the suits are transferredto any AdditionalDistrict Judge/ DistrictJudge, in the Saket Court Complex. Learnedcounsel for the appellantsstates that they would file an applicationto the said effectbefore the single Judge with the said prayer. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that he would not oppose the prayer. It will be open to the appellants to file an applicationbefore the single Judge, and refer to the statementmade beforeus by learnedcounselfor the respondent.

¶25

In these circumstances, we are not passing any order on the applicationsfiled in some of the appeals for condonationof delay as we are of the opinion that the Division Bench does not have any jurisdictionto

¶26

Page 4 of 5

¶27

¶28

entertainand examinethe appealson merits. 11. The appeals are dismissed as not maintainable,without expressing any opinion on merits. Dasti.

¶29

^
--a -
SANJIVKHANNA, J.

¶30

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶31

NOVEMBER 12, 2018 MR

¶32

Later on Mr. Rajesh Panday, Advocatefor the appellantin FAO(OS) Nos. 288/2017and 311/2017, appearsand statesthat the appellant,Ms. Ritu Kapila would like to challengethe impugned orders of the learned single Judge in an appeal before the Supreme Court. She is not agreeable to transfer of civil suits/civilcases to the Court of AdditionalDistrictJudge/ DistrictJudge, SaketDistrictCourts. We have recordedthe statement.

¶33

C
SANJIV ANNA, J.

¶34

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

¶35

NOVEMBER 12, 2018 MR

¶36

Page 5 of 5

Sharven Kumar Mohan v. Saroj Jain Alias Sweety & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharven Kumar Mohan v. Saroj Jain Alias Sweety & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jugal Kishore Ratnu Vs Meena Tevary & Ors.

Ajay Sharma & Anr. Vs Manu Markande

Manu Markande and Anr. Vs State & Ors.

Pranay Dubey & Anr. Vs Meena Kumari & Ors.

Baljinder Singh Vs Sadhu Singh & Ors.

Gayatri Bajaj & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

M/S Ram Abhoshan Vs M/S Pec Ltd.

K v Kohli (Since Deceased) Thr Legal Represntatives Vs Pamella Manmohan Singh & Ors.

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -1 (International Taxation) Vs Ge Engine Services Inc.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Vs Ge Engine Service Distribution Llc

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Vs Ge Engine Service Disrtibution Llc

Sandeep Marwah Vs Assistant Cit

Sandeep Marwah Vs Assistant Cit

Ritu Kapila Vs Saroj & Anr.