Som Nath v. Padam Chand Vaish & Anr

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29 June, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller.

2. The grievance ofthe petitioner is that vide impugned order dated 29^*^ June,2015 while disposing ofthe applications under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners, the learned ARC has expressed views on following two aspects raised in the said applications:-

(i) Decree obtained by playing fraud;

(ii) Applicability oflaw oflimitation in a petition under Section 14(l)(b)

3. Mr. P.K.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioners had drawn the attention ofthis Courtto the said observation and submitted that in the light ofviews already expressed by the learned ARC,unless the said order is set aside serious prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners as in that case whatever may be argued in objection petition by the petitioners, shall be covered by the observation already made.

4. Mr.Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that all these petitions can be disposed ofby a consent order.Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Executing Court is in the process of hearing the parties on the objections filed by the petitioners. Mr.P.K.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioners/objectors had already advanced arguments and shortly on behalfofthe respondents he would be addressing the learned ARC. Mr.Deepak Gupta,learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since the Executing Court is in the process of hearing final arguments on the objections, the petitioners are at liberty to raise the issue ofobtaining eviction decree by allegedly playing fraud as well on the issue ofapplicability oflimitation act in a petition under Section 14(l)(b)of DRC Act and thereafter the Executing Court can dispose ofthe objection on its own merit.

5. Mr. P.K.Rawal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that if the learned ARC decides the objections on merits without being prejudiced by the observations made inthe impugned order dated 29^^ June, 2015 then he has no objection ifthese petitions are dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioners to raise these issues before the learned ARC.It is further submitted by the learned counselforthe petitioners that CM(M)Nos.640/2015,641/2015,642/2015, 643/2015 &684/2015 Page3of[4] the aggrieved parties may be given liberty to approach this Court againstthe order disposing ofthe objections.

6. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents would be having no objection if the learned ARC decides objections on merits without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order while disposing of the application under Section 151 CPC.

7. In view ofthe above joint submissions, as prayed, all these petitions being CM(M)Nos.640/2015, 641/2015, 642/2015, 643/2015 & 684/2015 are dismissed as notpressed.

8. Needless to state that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the issue offraud and limitation shall be dealt with by the learned Executing Court without being prejudiced by the observations made in the impugned order. The aggrieved party has a vested right to avail the remedy as per law and no separate liberty is required to be given for impugning the order which may be passed while disposing ofthe objections. CMNo.12384/2015 in CMCMf 640/2015 CMNo.12386/2015 in CMfMf 641/2015 CM No.12388/2015 in CMfMl642/2015 CM No.12390/2015 in CM(M)643/2015 CMNo.13389/2015 in CM(M)684/2015 Dismissed. ^RATffiHA RANI,J AUGUST 07,2015 'Pg'