Full Text
Translation output
V! , $24 & 28 (common order)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 1414/2017 and CM No.45437/2017
M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 1414/2017 and CM No.45437/2017
M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv.
VERSUS
SACHIN TYAGI & ANR Respondents
Through
Through
CM(M) 1419/2017 and CM No.45473/2017
M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv.
M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv.
VERSUS
PARAMJEET TYAGI Respondent
Through
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
15.12.2017 The petitioner is aggrieved because, on his cases (CS. Nos.3778/2017
& 3779/2017), the Additional District Judge, by the impugned order dated
16.11.2017, issued summons for settlement of issues to the defendant, returnable on 27.04.2018, while posting the cases for pronouncement of the order on the application under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to 28.02.2018, the grievance being that deferment of the decision on the request for appointment of the receiver to such a long date would frustrate the objective and entail irreparable loss.
2017:DHC:8820 Indeed, if a party seeks ex parte relief, the court is expected to pass an appropriate order, one way or the other, expeditiously within reasonable time. Fixing a date for the order to be passed more than three months later is apparently neither reasonable nor proper.
The petitioner, at this stage, submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petitions and the applications filed therewith and instead approach the trial court by a fresh application seeking early decision in the matters.
The petitions and the applications filed therewith are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed, granted.
Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 15, 2017 vk 2017:DHC:8820
15.12.2017 The petitioner is aggrieved because, on his cases (CS. Nos.3778/2017
& 3779/2017), the Additional District Judge, by the impugned order dated
16.11.2017, issued summons for settlement of issues to the defendant, returnable on 27.04.2018, while posting the cases for pronouncement of the order on the application under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to 28.02.2018, the grievance being that deferment of the decision on the request for appointment of the receiver to such a long date would frustrate the objective and entail irreparable loss.
2017:DHC:8820 Indeed, if a party seeks ex parte relief, the court is expected to pass an appropriate order, one way or the other, expeditiously within reasonable time. Fixing a date for the order to be passed more than three months later is apparently neither reasonable nor proper.
The petitioner, at this stage, submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petitions and the applications filed therewith and instead approach the trial court by a fresh application seeking early decision in the matters.
The petitions and the applications filed therewith are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed, granted.
Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 15, 2017 vk 2017:DHC:8820
JUDGMENT