Disposed

Suresh Sethi v. Raj Rani

Delhi HC29 Aug 2024CM(M)/3267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant in a decreed mandatory injunction suit challenged the first appellate court's maintainability finding and its conduct. Petition withdrawn as not pressed; petitioner allowed to appeal afresh before Senior Civil Judge, with execution stayed for one week.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suresh Sethi Vs Raj Rani — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~96

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision^: 29^th August, 2024

¶4

- CM(M) 3267/2024 &CM APPL. 49670-49671/2024

¶5

SURESH SETHI .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Saurabh Dev Karan Singh with Mr. Nipun Arora and Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

RAJ RANI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. Budhpriay Gautam and Ms. Manisha, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶11

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶12

Petitioner had been defending a suit for mandatory injunction filed by his mother.

¶13

Such suit was eventually decreed in favour of his mother (respondent herein).

¶14

The Petitioner, i.e. defendant filed an appeal before the Court of the learned District Judge, North, Rohini, Delhi by filing RCA DJ 23/2024.

¶15

However, the issue of maintainability of appeal was raised and the learned First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that in view of the valuation of the suit, the appeal was maintainable before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge,

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed CM(M) 3267/2024 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:3 0.08.2024 17:01:35

¶18

¶19

Rohini, Delhi.

¶20

However, fact remains that despite passing such order on 20.08.2024, such First Appellate Court called for the Trial Court Record and fixed up the matter for arguments on 19.10.2024. In the interregnum, when the appellant had prayed for stay, even such request was declined.

¶21

Such order is under challenge.

¶22

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the abovesaid directions passed by the said learned First Appellate Court, he would file appeal afresh before the competent Court. He submits that he would make appropriate request before such Appellate Court of Senior Civil Judge seeking stay of the execution of the decree in question. He prays that he may be given a breather of one week only so as to enable him to file such appeal before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and states that the respondent is in her nineties and she had to file the present suit on account of the act and behavior of her son and keeping in mind her age, it is a fit case where no further indulgence should be granted to the petitioner herein, else she will not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree.

¶24

Fact remains that respondent has also no qualm with respect to

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

CM(M) 3267/2024

¶27

¶28

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:3 0.08.2024 17:01:35

¶29

the impugned order whereby it has been observed that the appeal is maintainable before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge.

¶30

It is apprised that a Bailiff has already been appointed and the warrants are to be returned tomorrow i.e. 30.08.2024.

¶31

Keeping in mind the peculiar circumstances which have arisen in the case in hand, as despite the fact that the learned Court of District Judge was of the view that the appeal was not maintainable before it and while observing the same, it also called for Trial Court Record and has kept the matter for arguments, there is a need to safeguard the interest of the petitioner.

¶32

It is also because of the fact thatsince the appeal continues to remain pending before a Superior Court,the petitioner is not in a position to file another appeal, impugning the same order, before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge.

¶33

Fact remains that the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press the present petition anymore and would take immediate steps for the purposes of filing the appeal afresh and, therefore, the present petition is, hereby, disposed of as not pressed with direction that the petitioner would file appeal, as undertaken by him, before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge, and would also be at liberty to move appropriate application before such Court seeking any permissible relief. It will be up to said First Appellate Court of learned Senior Civil

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

CM(M) 3267/2024

¶36

¶37

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:3 0.08.2024 17:01:35

¶38

Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge to consider such request and to decide the same in accordance with law, after hearing both the sides.

¶39

However, in the interregnum, let the execution may not be proceeded further for a period of one week to be reckoned from today so as to enable the petitioner to file appeal and to seek relief, if any.

¶40

Keeping in mind the fact that the respondent is in her nineties, it is expected that the learned First Appellate Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge shall consider any such appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

This Court also wishes to clarify that such Court of learned Senior Civil Judge shall not get swayed by any observation made in this order.

¶42

A copy of this order be given Dasti to both the sides under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶43

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶44

AUGUST 29, 2024 st

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

CM(M) 3267/2024

¶47

¶48

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:3 0.08.2024 17:01:35

Suresh Sethi v. Raj Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suresh Sethi v. Raj Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of M/S Banwari Lai Charitable Trust Vs Smt Shobha

Shri Aman Gupta Vs Ms. Meetu Hans & Anr.

Inderjeet Kaur Vs Govind Singh Bisht

Jansewa Griha Nirman Developers and Builders through Mr. Shailendra Banode Vs Smt. Kalpana C. Chafale

Prabha Devi @ Prabha Rastogi Vs Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda)

M/S Dsc Limited Vs M/S Cico Technologies Limited

M/S Ansal Buildwell Ltd. Vs M/S Saral Builders

Kusum Chhetri (Deceased) through Lr Vs Raj Rani Juneja (Deceased) through Lr & Anr.

The Management of M/S Banwari Lai Charitable Trust Vs Smt Shobha

Shri Aman Gupta Vs Ms. Meetu Hans & Anr.

Inderjeet Kaur Vs Govind Singh Bisht

M/S Jay Colour Company Vs M/S Surender Kumar Jain

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sakshi Abraham & Anr.

Sanjogta Chawla Vs Om Prakash Chawla