Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08th July, 2024
PREM ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Mahajan
ARORA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
1. It happens to be a petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and had filed a suit way back in the year 2014 seeking, inter alia, possession of the suit property.
3. According to the petitioner, there was no real dispute qua the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as regarding the rate of rent which was above Rs.3,500/- per month. It has been contended that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) had moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC before the learned CM(M) 2859/2024 2 Trial Court on 03.01.2015.
4. The attention of the Court has been drawn towards the impugned order dated 31.05.2024. Such order indicates that the learned Trial Court did hear the arguments with respect to the aforesaid application as well as qua one consequent application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC but declined to decide the same. Para 5, 6, 7 and 8 of said order are extracted herein below:-
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court was well within its rights to have even dismissed the application but there was no justification and logic in keeping the application pending. It is contended that even if the learned Trial Court was of the view or the opinion that there was no admission of any kind whatsoever made by the opposite side and that such application was CM(M) 2859/2024 3 meritless, it should have decided the same instead of postponing those indefinitely.
6. The impugned order also indicates that the suit in question happens to be one of the oldest cases pending before the learned Trial Court.
7. Needless to say, keeping in mind the nature of application and the fact that the application was moved way back in the year 2015, the Court should have given due preference and priority to said application, instead of postponing the same. Such application has to be given due regard as it can result in quick disposal of the lis. Postponment of such kind of application is neither justifiable nor permissible.
8. Nobody appears from the opposite side despite service of advance notice.
9. Fact remains that, even if this petition is allowed and the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the application moved under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and also the other application moved under Order XXXIX Rule 10, it is not going to prejudice the respondent in any manner whatsoever. Viewed thus, there is no real purpose in keeping this matter pending any more, also considering the fact that this is one of the oldest case pending before the learned Trial Court.
10. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of by directing the learned Trial Court to take up both the aforesaid applications and to pass appropriate orders before proceeding further with the trial.
11. Before parting, I need to lay emphasis and clarify that this CM(M) 2859/2024 4 Court has not expressed any opinion whatsoever about the merits of the aforesaid applications and it would be upto the learned Trial Court to decide the same in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to both the sides.
12. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the
JUDGE JULY 08, 2024