Mahipal Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mahipal Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Exemption application (CM APPL. 20178/2025) allowed subject to just exceptions; petition disposed of with direction that the Appellate Tribunal (MCD), Delhi may give indulgence to the applicant within the confines of Section 14(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

Issue for consideration

Whether an applicant (Raj Kumar) whose impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was dismissed as not maintainable should have been permitted, by supplementary observation of the Appellate Tribunal, to file documents and orally argue the appeal at the final-arguments stage.

Court's answer

The learned Appellate Tribunal has ample power under Section 14(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 to direct production of any document or examination of any witness so as to enable itself to dispose of an appeal.

Ratio / Principle

Production of any document and hearing any person with respect to such production is within the scope and ambit of Section 14(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and not beyond.

Key takeaways

The petition was disposed of with the direction that the Appellate Tribunal (MCD), Delhi may give indulgence to the applicant only within the confines of Section 14(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.; oral) disposed of CM(M) 633/2025, Mahipal Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner appealed against the Appellate Tribunal (MCD)'s supplementary observation permitting Raj Kumar - whose impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC had been dismissed as not maintainable - to file documents and orally argue Appeal No. 323/2024 at the final-arguments stage. The Court held that the Tribunal possesses ample power under Section 14(4), Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, to direct production of documents and examination of witnesses, and that hearing a person with respect to production of documents falls within, and not beyond, that provision. The petition was disposed of with the direction that the Tribunal may accord indulgence to the applicant only within the confines of Section 14(4); the exemption application was allowed.

$~75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 7^th April, 2025

- CM(M) 633/2025 & CM APPL. 20177-20178/2025

MAHIPAL SINGH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, Advocate

versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Sidhant Garg, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

CM APPL. 20178/2025 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 633/2025 & CM APPL. 20177/2025

Petitioner has filed an appeal which is pending adjudication before the learned Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal (MCD), Delhi.

Appeal is titled as Mahipal Singh Vs. MCD (Appeal No. 323/2024) .

During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, application was moved by one Mr. Raj Kumar under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment as a necessary party in the aforesaid appeal on the premise that he shared adjoining boundary wall with the property in question.

Fact remains that such application has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Tribunal observing that the same is not maintainable and, in case there is any dispute between such applicant and the appellant, the applicant

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 633/2025 1

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.04.2025 16:43:05

can always maintain proceedings before a competent Civil Court.

Appellant is, however, aggrieved by supplementary observation made in the aforesaid order whereby such applicant has been, however, permitted to file documents, if any, and to orally argue the matter at final-arguments stage. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is very limited.

He submits that since applicant was not found to be a necessary or proper party in the aforesaid appeal, he should not have been given any permission or indulgence to place on record any document or for that matter to argue the matter.

Fact remains that the learned Appellate Tribunal has ample power under Section 14 (4) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 whereby it can direct production of any document or examination of any witness to enable itself to dispose of any such appeal.

Therefore, production of any document and hearing any such person with respect to the production thereof is within the scope and ambit of Section 14 (4) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and not beyond. 10. Petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the learned Appellate Tribunal (MCD), Delhi may give indulgence to the applicant within the confines of Section 14 (4) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

Petition, along with all the pending applications, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

APRIL 7, 2025 /dr/pb

CM(M) 633/2025 2

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.04.2025 16:43:05