Dismissed

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Vivek Bharat Ram & Ors.

Delhi HC14 May 2025FAO(OS)/99/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a single judge's order in a Section 92 CPC trust-removal suit that only recorded prima facie views and sought instructions from parties. The Division Bench held the order was not an injunction or a judgment, so the appeal was not maintainable, and dismissed it with costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs Vivek Bharat Ram & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~103

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 14.05.2025

¶4

- FAO(OS) 99/2024 AJAY KUMAR SHARMA

¶5

.....Appellant

¶6

Through: Mr.J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. along with Mr.Avneet Singh Sikka, Adv

¶7

versus

¶8

VIVEK BHARAT RAM & ORS.

¶9

.....Respondents Through: Mr.Yogender Misra, Mr.Gurtejpal Singh, Mr.Jai Dogra & Mr.Shantanu Dwivedi, Advs

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶12

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM APPL. 39880/2024

¶14

This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 46 days in re-filing of the appeal.

¶15

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶16

FAO(OS) 99/2024 & CM APPL. 39878/2024 - STAY

¶17

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the Order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) 108/2022, titled Vivek Bharatram & Anr. v. Ajay

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 99/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶21

Kumar Sharma & Anr . and I.As 3135/2022, 3654/2023, 6773/2023 and 12168/2023 filed therein.

¶22

The above suit has been filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), seeking removal of the appellant as the Managing Trustee of the respondent no. 3 – Shriram Education Trust. The learned Single Judge, in the Impugned Order, recording the prima facie opinion that certain clauses of the Trust Deed may require to be amended and some Trustees need to be appointed, so as to create proper quorum for proper functioning of the Trust. The learned Single Judge allowed the learned counsels for the parties to consult their respective clients for making suggestions on this aspect to the Court on the next date of hearing.

¶23

The learned Single Judge also prima facie found that there may be a need for conducting an independent audit of the funds and accounts of the Trust. Again, with regard to this aspect as well, the learned Single Judge allowed the parties to obtain instructions and make submissions on the next date of hearing.

¶24

As the Impugned Order, in effect, only asked the counsels to seek instructions from their respective parties and to make further suggestions and submissions on few aspects that were pointed out by the learned Single Judge, we enquired from the learned senior counsel for the appellant as to how this appeal is maintainable.

¶25

He submits that as the Impugned Order is passed on an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by the

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 99/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶29

respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, being I.A. No. 3135/2022, therefore, in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC, an appeal against the same shall be maintainable. He submits that even otherwise, the Impugned Order is a ‘ judgment ’, therefore, Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1996 is also invoked.

¶30

He further submits that the Impugned Order, insofar as it states that certain clauses of the Trust Deed may require a change, is beyond the scope of the application filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. He submits that, therefore, no order in this regard can be passed. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928. He further submits that this would amount to re-writing of the Trust Deed by a Court in a civil suit, which is not permissible.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that this appeal is not maintainable, inasmuch as the Impugned Order does not decide any of the applications that were pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge, but merely expresses certain views and calls upon the counsels to take instructions from the parties and make further submissions on the same. It merely records the prima facie opinion of the learned Single Judge on certain aspects, which the learned Single Judge felt the parties ought to consider in order to resolve their disputes. He submits that there are no restraints or directions issued in pursuance of such prima facie opinion of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it is

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 99/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶35

neither in the form of an injunction nor is it appealable.

¶36

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶37

As would be evident from a bare reading of the Impugned Order, it does not contain any injunction or direction to either of the parties to do or restrain from doing anything. It merely records the prima facie opinion of the learned Single Judge on how the disputes between the parties can be resolved. In fact, time was granted to the learned counsels for the parties to seek instructions in this regard. We may quote the relevant paragraphs of the Impugned Order as under:

¶38

“12. At the juncture, on the aspect of amending the relevant clauses of the Trust Deed and the Supplementary Trust Deed, as also for appointment of independent trustees, ld. Counsels for the parties wish to consult their respective clients for making suggestions to the Court on the next date of hearing.

¶39

13. The Court is also of the opinion that an independent audit ought to be conducted of the funds and accounts of the Trust to establish whether the allegations made by both parties against each other are substantiated or not. The parties may also obtain instructions in this regard and make submissions on the next date of hearing . ”

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

Therefore, in our opinion, this is not an order which has been passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, and as such, the present appeal is not maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. It is also not a ‘judgment’ as explained by the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. , (1981)

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 99/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶45

4 SCC 8.

¶46

The appeal is clearly misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/-, to be deposited by the appellant with the ‘ DHCBA Cost’ (A/c No. 15530110179338) within a period of two weeks from today.

¶47

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶48

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶49

MAY 14, 2025/ rv/ SJ

¶50

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶51

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 99/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶52

Page 5 of 5

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Vivek Bharat Ram & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Vivek Bharat Ram & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Vs Ani Media Private Limited & Ors.

Kedarnath Gupta (Deceased) Thr Lr Vs M/S Gunjan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Arjun Chowdhry Vs Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Om Gulati Vs Rajiv Gulati HUF and Others

Mrs Sangeeta Mulwani & Anr. Vs Mrs Kavita Keswani

Mr. Rajeev Seth Vs State of Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kamal Jindal Vs Gyan Prakash Tayal (Since Deceased) through Lr. Madhur Tayal

Sh. Kamal Kumar Newar Vs Sh. Nand Kumar Newar

Staff Selection Commision, through Its Chairman & Anr. Vs Deshbandhu

Lokesh Prabhakar Vs Archna Prabhakar

Pushpender Vs Sonia Choudhary

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Avgalla Meena

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs Veerendra Singh

Ms. Sharanjit Kaur Kohli Vs Ramandeep Singh Kohli