Sahiba Creations India Private Limited and Ors. v. Ms. Shelly Syal

Delhi High Court · 21 Jul 2025 · 2025:DHC:5955
Manoj Jain
CM(M) 741/2023
2025:DHC:5955
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging an interim order as infructuous since the suit was already disposed of by a decree, declining to interfere under Article 227.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 741/2023 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st July, 2025
CM(M) 741/2023
SAHIBA CREATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS .....Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
MS. SHELLY SYAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemraj Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)
CM(M) 741/2023 & CM APPL. 42815/2025 (for the dismissal of the instant petition)

1. None appears on behalf of the petitioners.

2. However, the abovesaid application has been filed from the side of the respondent apprising about the subsequent development in the suit in question.

3. Present petition has been filed by the defendants, who are aggrieved by order passed by learned Trial Court whereby the plaintiff was permitted to place certain documents on record.

4. It has, however, been informed that the matter has already been disposed of by the learned Trial Court on 14.08.2024 and a decree has already been passed in favour of the plaintiff.

5. It is, therefore, prayed that since the suit in question has already been disposed of, the present petition does not survive, and, accordingly, the same CM(M) 741/2023 2 should be disposed of as being infructuous.

6. It is, however, important to mention that earlier when the suit in question was taken up by the learned Trial Court, it had refrained to proceed with the trial in order to await for the outcome of the present petition but, fact remains that, thereafter, the matter was taken up and has, eventually, been disposed of, already.

7. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it appropriate to invoke its supervisory powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India and to interfere with an interim order, when a decree has already been passed.

8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners that in case they, feeling aggrieved by the abovesaid judgment and decree, file any appeal, in terms of Section 105 CPC, it would be permissible for them to take objection in the memorandum of appeal with respect to the order, which is impugned herein.

9. All rights and contentions of the parties, in this regard, are reserved.

10. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

11. The next date i.e. 12.08.2025 is cancelled.

JUDGE JULY 21, 2025/ss/pb