Full Text
Translation output
f ''X f $-4 » HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)912/2015&C.Ms21771/2015&27781/16
RAJESHKUMAR AGGARWAL Appellant
Through: Mr.Mitthan Lai,Advocate
CM(M)912/2015&C.Ms21771/2015&27781/16
RAJESHKUMAR AGGARWAL Appellant
Through: Mr.Mitthan Lai,Advocate
VERSUS
SUNIL&ORS. V -
Through: Mr.S.K.Mishra,Advocate with respondentNo.3-in-person
Through: Mr.S.K.Mishra,Advocate with respondentNo.3-in-person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
0/^ 13.02.2017 One ofthe orders impugned in this petition is of2U'May,2014 vide which petitioner's application under Order9Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed being bereftofmeritsand with costof^1,000/-.
During the pendency of this petition, petitioner was directed to deposittheawardedamountalthoughstandtakenbyhim wasthathewas not the registered owner ofthe vehicle in question and is not liable to satisfy the Award, which has been passed jointly and severely against driver-owner as well as petitioner herein. Although interim orders were passedinthispetition,butwerenotcontinued andasperpetitioner'sown showing,out ofthe awarded amount deposited by appellant, a sum of
Rs.3,03,250/-hasbeen already releasedtorespondents-claimants.
Vide last order, execution file was summoned and its perusal revealsthatexecutionstandssatisfied. Thereliefsoughtinthispetition is for stay of the orders passed in the execution proceedings. Thus, it
2017:DHC:8826 becomes evident that this petition has become infructuous. However, petitioner cannotbe left without a remedy,as he wasexparte before the learned Tribunal and his application seeking setting aside of ex parte proceedings has been dismissed vide impugned order of2H'May,2014.
Asper Order43Rule 1 CPC,order dismissing application under Order9
Rule 13 CPC,is appealable.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to inadvertence,an appeal was not filed against order or 2L'May,2014 and petitioner be now permitted to appeal against it while waiving the objection of limitation.
Upon hearing and in the peculiar facts and circumstances ofthis case,this petition and the application are disposed ofas infructuous with libertyto petitionertofilean appealagainstorderof21"May,2014along with application for condonation ofdelay within four weeks.Needlessto say, if it is not so done,then an application for condonation of delay would be considered while taking into consideration the period spent in pursuing the remedy before a wrong forum. In the event of petitioner succeeding in the appeal against order of21" May,2014, it would be opento petitionertoseektherecovery ofthe amountdeposited by him in pursuancetothe orderspassed in this petition.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of while not commenting upon merits, lest it may prejudice eitherside in appeal proposed to be filed.
(S^fLGAURT JUDGE FEBRUARY 13,2017 Page 2 CMCM)No.912/2015
2017:DHC:8826
0/^ 13.02.2017 One ofthe orders impugned in this petition is of2U'May,2014 vide which petitioner's application under Order9Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed being bereftofmeritsand with costof^1,000/-.
During the pendency of this petition, petitioner was directed to deposittheawardedamountalthoughstandtakenbyhim wasthathewas not the registered owner ofthe vehicle in question and is not liable to satisfy the Award, which has been passed jointly and severely against driver-owner as well as petitioner herein. Although interim orders were passedinthispetition,butwerenotcontinued andasperpetitioner'sown showing,out ofthe awarded amount deposited by appellant, a sum of
Rs.3,03,250/-hasbeen already releasedtorespondents-claimants.
Vide last order, execution file was summoned and its perusal revealsthatexecutionstandssatisfied. Thereliefsoughtinthispetition is for stay of the orders passed in the execution proceedings. Thus, it
2017:DHC:8826 becomes evident that this petition has become infructuous. However, petitioner cannotbe left without a remedy,as he wasexparte before the learned Tribunal and his application seeking setting aside of ex parte proceedings has been dismissed vide impugned order of2H'May,2014.
Asper Order43Rule 1 CPC,order dismissing application under Order9
Rule 13 CPC,is appealable.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to inadvertence,an appeal was not filed against order or 2L'May,2014 and petitioner be now permitted to appeal against it while waiving the objection of limitation.
Upon hearing and in the peculiar facts and circumstances ofthis case,this petition and the application are disposed ofas infructuous with libertyto petitionertofilean appealagainstorderof21"May,2014along with application for condonation ofdelay within four weeks.Needlessto say, if it is not so done,then an application for condonation of delay would be considered while taking into consideration the period spent in pursuing the remedy before a wrong forum. In the event of petitioner succeeding in the appeal against order of21" May,2014, it would be opento petitionertoseektherecovery ofthe amountdeposited by him in pursuancetothe orderspassed in this petition.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of while not commenting upon merits, lest it may prejudice eitherside in appeal proposed to be filed.
(S^fLGAURT JUDGE FEBRUARY 13,2017 Page 2 CMCM)No.912/2015
2017:DHC:8826
JUDGMENT