Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P. 227/2007
SUMAN GOEL & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate.
C.R.P. 227/2007
SUMAN GOEL & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate.
VERSUS
KALKA PRASAD AGGARWAL(HUF) Respondent
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Siddharth Bambha, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Siddharth Bambha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
01.09.2011 CM No. 4722/2011 This application was filed by the respondent to issue a direction to the petitioner No.1 herein to put her appearance in Criminal Leave Petition No. 1247/2011 which has been filed by the respondent herein against her against the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing its complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Counsel for the applicant submits that leave petition is also listed today before another Bench.
In view of the fact that counsel for the petitioners, who are stated to be allegedly the respondents in the criminal leave petition of the respondent, is appearing in this matter today in response to the notice of this application no direction, as has been prayed for in this application, is, required to be given to the petitioners. It would be for the applicant to make appropriate submissions before the Bench where the criminal leave petition is listed, for appropriate orders and it is upto the petitioners to enter appearance in that matter or not to do that.
This application stands disposed of now.
01.09.2011 CM No. 4722/2011 This application was filed by the respondent to issue a direction to the petitioner No.1 herein to put her appearance in Criminal Leave Petition No. 1247/2011 which has been filed by the respondent herein against her against the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing its complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Counsel for the applicant submits that leave petition is also listed today before another Bench.
In view of the fact that counsel for the petitioners, who are stated to be allegedly the respondents in the criminal leave petition of the respondent, is appearing in this matter today in response to the notice of this application no direction, as has been prayed for in this application, is, required to be given to the petitioners. It would be for the applicant to make appropriate submissions before the Bench where the criminal leave petition is listed, for appropriate orders and it is upto the petitioners to enter appearance in that matter or not to do that.
This application stands disposed of now.
C.R.P. 227/2007
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
This petition is against the order dated 10th October, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under
Order 16 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.
C.R.P. 22712007 page 1 of2 2011:DHC:9175 In view of the proviso to Section 115 (1) CPC this revision petition is not being entertained as it is against an interlocutory order. Even if the petitioners' application under
Order 16(l)(3) CPC had been allowed that would not have finally disposed of the suit.
Counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners can still challenge the impugned order by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, liberty may be given to the petitioners to invoke that constitutional remedy.
This revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable without going into the merits of the case.
It is needless to say that the petitioners would be at liberty to have recourse to any other remedy which they think is available to them in law.
1-lere reference can be made to the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in one case in which a similar liberty was sought from the Court on behalf of a litigant whose revision petition had been held to be not maintainable in view of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 115 CPC for being permitted to invoke the remedy under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. That decision was rendered in the case "Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing
Society Nagpur vs. Swaraj Developers and others", (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 659 and in the concluding paras No. 34 to 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed like this:-
"34. In view o/whai has been stated above, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Courts were right in the conclusion about non-maintainability of revision applications.
It was submitted by learned counsel Jbr the appellants that even if/he revision applications are held to be not maintainable, there should not be a bar on challenge being made under Article 227 o the Constitution. It was submitted that an opportunity may be granted to the appellants to avail the remedy.
1/ any remedy i.available to a party under any statute no liberly is necessaiy to he granted for availing the same. If the appellants avail such remedy, the same shall he dealth with in accordance with law."
SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 nk HAS,J/ / C.R.P. 22712007
2011:DHC:9175
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
This petition is against the order dated 10th October, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under
Order 16 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.
C.R.P. 22712007 page 1 of2 2011:DHC:9175 In view of the proviso to Section 115 (1) CPC this revision petition is not being entertained as it is against an interlocutory order. Even if the petitioners' application under
Order 16(l)(3) CPC had been allowed that would not have finally disposed of the suit.
Counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners can still challenge the impugned order by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, liberty may be given to the petitioners to invoke that constitutional remedy.
This revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable without going into the merits of the case.
It is needless to say that the petitioners would be at liberty to have recourse to any other remedy which they think is available to them in law.
1-lere reference can be made to the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in one case in which a similar liberty was sought from the Court on behalf of a litigant whose revision petition had been held to be not maintainable in view of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 115 CPC for being permitted to invoke the remedy under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. That decision was rendered in the case "Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing
Society Nagpur vs. Swaraj Developers and others", (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 659 and in the concluding paras No. 34 to 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed like this:-
"34. In view o/whai has been stated above, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Courts were right in the conclusion about non-maintainability of revision applications.
It was submitted by learned counsel Jbr the appellants that even if/he revision applications are held to be not maintainable, there should not be a bar on challenge being made under Article 227 o the Constitution. It was submitted that an opportunity may be granted to the appellants to avail the remedy.
1/ any remedy i.available to a party under any statute no liberly is necessaiy to he granted for availing the same. If the appellants avail such remedy, the same shall he dealth with in accordance with law."
SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 nk HAS,J/ / C.R.P. 22712007
2011:DHC:9175
JUDGMENT