Full Text
Translation output
RSA No.365/2014 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: November 28, 2014
Date of Decision: November 28, 2014
RSA 365/2014 & CM Nos.19550-19551/2014
DR. K.S.SIDHU ..... Appellant
Through: In person with Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate
DR. K.S.SIDHU ..... Appellant
Through: In person with Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR, INDIAN COUNCIL OF ARBITRATION ..... Respondent
Through: None
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
A suit for recovery of `5,02,500/- with interest and costs stood decreed by the concerned Additional District Judge against respondent herein who had challenged the judgment and decree of 4th June, 2013 of trial court by way of Regular First Appeal No.341/2013, which has been allowed and the cross objections of appellant herein have been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned judgment of 8th January, 2014. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the said judgment of 8th January, 2014.
At the outset, learned counsel for appellant herein had submitted that this second appeal lies before a Division Bench of this Court and had submitted that it be so directed. Attention of this Court was drawn to
2014:DHC:6524 RSA No.365/2014 Page 2 Chapter 3, Part B of Delhi High Court Rules to point out that First Appeal from the decree of a subordinate court has to be heard by Single Judge of this Court and according to learned counsel, Rule 4 of Part B in Chapter 3 of the aforesaid Rules provides that further appeal lies before a Division
Bench against dismissal of Regular First Appeal by a Single Judge of this
Court. Rule 4 of Part B in Chapter 3 of the aforesaid Rules is as under:-
“All cases to be disposed of by a Bench of two Judges save as provided by law or by these rules- Save as provided by law or by these rules or by special order of the Chief Justice, all cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.”
Upon hearing appellant and his counsel on the maintainability of this appeal and on perusal of aforesaid quoted Rule 4 in Part B of Chapter
3 of the above said Rules, I find that Rule 4 does not pertain to cases disposed of under the Code of Civil Procedure and so in the considered opinion of this Court, second appeal would not lie before a Division
Bench of this Court.
In view of aforesaid, this appeal and the applications are dismissed as not maintainable.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 28, 2014 vn 2014:DHC:6524
A suit for recovery of `5,02,500/- with interest and costs stood decreed by the concerned Additional District Judge against respondent herein who had challenged the judgment and decree of 4th June, 2013 of trial court by way of Regular First Appeal No.341/2013, which has been allowed and the cross objections of appellant herein have been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned judgment of 8th January, 2014. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the said judgment of 8th January, 2014.
At the outset, learned counsel for appellant herein had submitted that this second appeal lies before a Division Bench of this Court and had submitted that it be so directed. Attention of this Court was drawn to
2014:DHC:6524 RSA No.365/2014 Page 2 Chapter 3, Part B of Delhi High Court Rules to point out that First Appeal from the decree of a subordinate court has to be heard by Single Judge of this Court and according to learned counsel, Rule 4 of Part B in Chapter 3 of the aforesaid Rules provides that further appeal lies before a Division
Bench against dismissal of Regular First Appeal by a Single Judge of this
Court. Rule 4 of Part B in Chapter 3 of the aforesaid Rules is as under:-
“All cases to be disposed of by a Bench of two Judges save as provided by law or by these rules- Save as provided by law or by these rules or by special order of the Chief Justice, all cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.”
Upon hearing appellant and his counsel on the maintainability of this appeal and on perusal of aforesaid quoted Rule 4 in Part B of Chapter
3 of the above said Rules, I find that Rule 4 does not pertain to cases disposed of under the Code of Civil Procedure and so in the considered opinion of this Court, second appeal would not lie before a Division
Bench of this Court.
In view of aforesaid, this appeal and the applications are dismissed as not maintainable.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 28, 2014 vn 2014:DHC:6524