Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 304/2009 & CM Nos. 9890-9891/2009
Date of Decision: July 22, 2009 HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATION LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parmanand and Mr. Debasis Mukherjee, Advocates.
Through: Ms. Monika Garg, Advcocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of the local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No JUDGMENT (ORAL) MUKUL MUDGAL, J.
1. Notice.
2. Ms. Garg, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent UOI.
3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
4. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 13th April, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 4753/2009 2009:DHC:2833-DB in O.M.P. No. 127 of 2008. The impugned order reads as follows:- “ O R D E R 13.04.2009 % IA No. 4753/2009 This application has been made for early hearing. The matter has already been listed for arguments and disposal in the category of “finals” at its own turn. Counsel for the applicant/respondent shows anxiety that the matter involves huge amount of money and has already been heard by another Bench partly but is discharged from being part heard because of urgency. The case pertains to year 2008. I consider that priority cannot be given to the matter of 2008 over the matters of 1998. I find no ground for early hearing. The application is hereby dismissed.”
5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not assailed the impugned order dated 13th April, 2009 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has dismissed its application for early hearing but has submitted by reference to prayer (b) contained in that very application filed by the appellant in his OMP No. 127 of 2008, which has prayed for deposit of the decreetal amount in this Court, that the same was not considered by the learned Single Judge.
6. The impugned order shows that the issue [prayer (b)] has escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. We are of the view that it is open to the appellant to press prayer (b) in OMP No. 127 of before the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the dismissal of the I.A. No. 4753/2009.
7. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. All the pending applications stand disposed of as well.
MUKUL MUDGAL [JUDGE] NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL [JUDGE] JULY 22, 2009 sb