Ritu Kapila v. Saroj & Anr

2. It is an accepted and admitted position that impugned orders are not appealable under Section 104 ofthe Code.

3. Reliance is placed by the appellants on Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 ('DHC Act' for short), which reads as under:- "10. Powers ofJudges: (1) Where a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by sub- section (2) of section 5 on that Court, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the single Judge to a Division Court of that High Court. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (1), the law in force immediately before the appointed day relating to the powers of the Chief Justice, single Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Punjab and with respect to all matters ancillary to the exercise of those powers, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court of Delhi."

4. Sub-section 1 to Section 10 ofthe DHC Act applies to order(s) passed by the single Judge of the High Court in exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by sub-section (2) to Section 5 ofthe DHC Act.

5. Section 5(2) ofthe DHC Act reads as under:- "5. Jurisdiction ofHigh Court ofDelhi: (1)The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union territory of Delhi, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of the said territories by the High Court of Punjab. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect ofthe said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value ofwhich exceeds rupees two crore." Sub-section (2) to Section 5 ofthe DHC Act states that the Delhi High Court shall exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction, in respect of suits of specified value.

6. A conjoint reading of the sub-section (1) to Section 10 and sub section (2) of Section 5 of the DHC Act would show that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 10 can be exercised in relation to original suits pending before the single Judge ofthis Court and in respect ofwhich single Judges of this Court exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction in view of the stipulated pecuniary value. It would not cover and include order(s) passed by the single judge inexercise ofother 'ordinary civil jurisdiction'.

7. In view of the statutory provisions in the DHC Act, decision of the Kerala High Court inK. V. Balan versus Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust & Ors., AIR 2006 Kerala 58 cited by the appellants, which had examined provisions ofSection 5 ofthe Kerala High Court Act, 1958, is not applicable. In K.V. Balan (supra) full bench of the Kerala High Court had noticed the difference of language and scope of Section 10 ofthe DHC Act and Section 5 of the Kerala HighCourt Act.

8. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that these appeals before the Division Bench are not maintainable as we do not have jurisdiction under Section 10(1) of the DHC Act over the order(s) passed under Section 24 of the Code.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants states that they would have no objection in case the suits are transferred to any Additional District Judge/ District Judge, in the Saket Court Complex. Learned counsel for the appellants states that they would file an application to the said effect before the single Judge with the said prayer. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that he would not oppose the prayer. It will be open to the appellants to file an application before the single Judge, and refer to the statement made before us by learned counsel for the respondent.

10. In these circumstances, we are not passing any order on the applications filed in some ofthe appeals for condonation ofdelay as we are of the opinion that the Division Bench does not have any jurisdiction to > entertain andexamine the appeals on merits.

11. The appeals are dismissed as not maintainable, without expressing any opinion on merits. Dasti.

NOVEMBER 12, 2018 MR ^ --a - SANJIVKHANNA, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J Later on Mr. Rajesh Panday, Advocate for the appellant in FAO(OS) Nos. 288/2017 and 311/2017, appears and states that the appellant, Ms. Ritu Kapila would like to challenge the impugned orders of the learned single Judge in an appeal before the Supreme Court. She is not agreeable to transfer of civil suits/civil cases to the Court of Additional District Judge/ District Judge, Saket District Courts. We have recorded the statement. C NOVEMBER 12, 2018 MR SANJIV ANNA, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.