Saroj Tyagi & Anr. Vs Mrs. Preeti Aggarwal & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Saroj Tyagi & Anr. Vs Mrs. Preeti Aggarwal & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw the appeal accepted from appellant no.2 on behalf of appellant no.1; appeal dismissed as not pressed alongwith the accompanying applications (CM APPL.74105/2024 (Stay), CM APPL.1922/2025); no action initiated against the appellants under Section 379 BNS despite respondent no.1's application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge wrongly recorded that the appellants had, in principle, agreed that all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Ranvir Singh Tyagi had equal share in the property, given the appellants' claim that they were unrepresented when the impugned judgment was passed. +2 more

Court's answer

From the correspondence exchanged between respondent no.1's counsel and the counsel representing the appellants before the learned Single Judge, it prima facie appeared that the appellants were duly represented before the Court when the impugned order came to be passed.

Ratio / Principle

Because the appellants sought liberty to withdraw the appeal, the Court refrained from initiating any action against them notwithstanding respondent no.1's application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Key takeaways

In light of that correspondence, the Court expressed a prima facie view that the appellants were trying to mislead the Court.obiter¶9
Accepting appellant no.2's withdrawal request made on behalf of appellant no.1, the Court dismissed the appeal, alongwith the accompanying applications, as not pressed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Rekha Palli and Ajay Digpaul, JJ., jointly signed), RFA(OS) 69/2024, decided 14.01.2025: The appellants, whose appeal challenged a Single Judge's judgment recording their in-principle agreement that all legal heirs of Late Sh. Ranvir Singh Tyagi had equal share in the property, contended at the earlier hearing that they were unrepresented when that judgment was passed. Counsel for respondent no.1, on advance notice, filed an application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita seeking action against the appellants for the allegedly patently false averment, producing correspondence which prima facie showed the appellants were duly represented before the learned Single Judge. Confronted with this, appellant no.2, present in Court and claiming authority from appellant no.1, sought liberty to withdraw the appeal. The Bench, while expressing a prima facie view that the appellants were trying to mislead it, refrained from initiating any action in view of the withdrawal request and dismissed the appeal, alongwith CM APPL.74105/2024 (Stay) and CM APPL.1922/2025, as not pressed.

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(OS) 69/2024 SAROJ TYAGI & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. F.S. Chauhan and Ms.Usha Kashyap, Advocates.

versus

MRS. PREETI AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. J.K. Srivastava and Ms.Taruna, Advocates for R1. Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, Advocates for R2 to R6.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 14.01.2025

RFA(OS) 69/2024 and CM APPL.74105/2024 (Stay), CM APPL.1922/2025

On the last date, learned counsel for the appellants had vehemently urged that on the date when the impugned judgment was passed, the appellants were unrepresented before the Court and therefore, it was wrongly recorded by the learned Single Judge that they had, in principle, agreed that all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Ranvir Singh Tyagi had equal share in the property.

Today, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, who appears on advance notice, has filed an application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita seeking initiation of action against the appellants for making this patently false averment before this Court.

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 17:37:36

The application is accompanied by a copy of the correspondence exchanged by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 with the counsel representing the appellants before the learned Single Judge from which it prima facie appears that the appellants were duly represented before the Court when the impugned order came to be passed. In the light of this position, we are of the prima facie view that the appellants are trying to mislead this Court.

When faced with this situation, the appellant no.2, who is present in Court seeks liberty to withdraw the appeal. He submits that he is also authorised on behalf of appellant no. 1 to seek withdrawal of the appeal. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, since the appellants are now seeking liberty to withdraw the appeal, we are refraining from initiating any action against them. The appeal, alongwith the accompanying applications, is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

REKHA PALLI, J

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

JANUARY 14, 2025 / uk

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 17:37:36