Pranshul Garg v. Harish Mittal

Delhi High Court · 09 Jul 2024 · 2024:DHC:5067
Manoj Jain
CM(M) 2879/2024
2024:DHC:5067
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court directed the trial court to expeditiously decide the petitioner’s pending interlocutory applications under Order XXXIX CPC and declined to decide them itself under Article 227.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 2879/2024 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th July, 2024
CM(M) 2879/2024 & CM APPL. 37975/2024
PRANSHUL GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Mangla, Advocate
VERSUS
HARISH MITTAL .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)
CM APPL. 37975/2024
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 2879/2024

1. Petitioner happens to be plaintiff before the learned Trial Court.

2. By filing present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, he merely seeks a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide his applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 and under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC.

3. It is contended that petitioner had moved an application seeking early hearing of those applications but even said application could not be taken up and now the matter is posted before the learned Trial Court on 05.08.2024.

4. During course of the consideration, learned counsel for petitioner has confined his request only to the effect that the learned Trial Court be requested to take up said applications and to decide the same as CM(M) 2879/2024 2 expeditiously as possible.

5. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is disposed of with direction to the learned Trial Court to take up said applications on the date fixed and then to dispose those of, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to both the sides.

JUDGE JULY 9, 2024