Full Text
JOHN NAGAR Appellant
Through: Mr.Ujjwal Jha,Adv.
Through: Mr.Rakesh Mittal,Adv.for R-1&2.
2+ LPA 183/2015, CMs No.5766/2015 (for stay) & 5767/2015 (for exemption)
RONALD NAGAR Appellant
Through: Mr.Ujjwal Jha,Adv.
Through: Mr.Rakesh Mittal,Adv.for R-1&2.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW
ORDER o/„ 15.04.2015
JUDGMENT
1. These two intra court appeals impugn identical but separate orders, both dated 23"^ March,2015,ofthe same learned Single Judge,ofdismissal ofW.P.(C)Nos.2891/2015 &2893/2015 filed by the appellantrespectively. The said writ petitions in turn were filed impugning the order dated 16 LPA 182/2015& LPA 183/2015 Pfge1of[3] th 2015:DHC:11729-DB March, 2015 of the Revenue Assistant, Mehrauli, Delhi, in a mutation proceeding,though adjourning the proceeding owing to non-availability of the Advocates,spelling outthe controversy and the clarifications which the Advocates on the next date were required to give. The writ petitions were filed alleging thatthe language used while highlighting the controversy and seekingthe clarifications,is prejudicialto the appellants/writpetitioners.
2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions in limine, observing that the appropriate remedy for the appellants / writ petitioners was to raise all the contentions before the Revenue Assistant and interference atthatstage was notwarranted.
3. Notsatisfied,these appeals have been preferred.
4. The counsel for the appellants has argued that the Revenue Assistant in the order dated 16'*' March,2015 has wrongly proceeded on the premise thatthe compromise arrived at between the parties in a partition suit in this Court does not bind the Revenue Assistant.
5. We have gone through the order dated 16^'' March,2015 and do not find the Revenue Assistant to have arrived at any conclusion and find the Revenue Assistant to have merely spelled out the matters on which he required the counsels to address on the next date. A perusal ofthe said order ofthe Revenue Assistant also discloses thatthere is a direction ofthis Court in some other proceeding for expeditious disposal of the matter pending before him. Perhaps,inthe lightofthe said direction,the Revenue Assistant did not wantthe date of16^ March,2015to be wasted and spelled outthe aspectson which he wantedthe counselsto address onthe nextdate. LPA 182/2015&LPA 183/2015 2of[3]
6. The appellants instead of satisfying the Revenue Assistant qua the queries raised in the order dated 16^ March,2015,filed the writ petitions and which have been rightly dismissed.
7. The appeals arethoroughly misconceived and are dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE l^JIV SAHAIENDLAW,J. APRIL 15,2015 Bs..