Full Text
Translation output
$-41 HIGH COURT OF DELHI 8948/2016 &CM. No.36396/2016
LT. COL. (RETD.) ANIL BHAT
Through Mr.N.LK.Bareja, Advocate." Petitioner
LT. COL. (RETD.) ANIL BHAT
Through Mr.N.LK.Bareja, Advocate." Petitioner
VERSUS
THE ESTATE OFFICER
Through ,, ^ , Respondent Mr.Ankur Chhibber and Mr.Rohit
Sharnia, Advocates.
Through ,, ^ , Respondent Mr.Ankur Chhibber and Mr.Rohit
Sharnia, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEETKAUR
30.09.2016 Petitioner before this Court is Lt.Col. Anil Bhat (retired), state Officer had passed orders dated 27.4.2004, 17.5.2004 and
16A2004 qua the allotted accommodation of the petitioner ie
5/ 92, Arjun Vihar. Against this order, an appeal was fUed under ec,on 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Oc upants) Act, 1971 before the concerned Appellate Body iethe
DtstnctJudge. This appeal was allowed on 0232012 A \- otdertherespondentTJepartmenthadtileda eIn ^ petition {WP(C) 3454/2012 disposed of by a Bench was ch of this Court on 14.5 2015 Mcff remanded back tn Matter was
" oacK to the concerned District Tnrirv ^ iJistrict Judge to consider the fresh
2016:DHC:8649 contentionsraised bythepetitionerherein. Tieparties were directed to appear before the concerned District Judge on 08.7.2015. This is where the confusion lies.
Contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was under bona fide impression that the concerned District would be the Court of District Judge Patiala House Court whereas his appearance was required before the concerned District Judge at
Dwarka.
This had led to the appeal being listed before the concerned
District Judge, Dwarka; the appeal was dismissed in default there.
This wason 25.8.2015.
An application under Section IX Rule 4ofthe Code ofCivil
Procedure, 1908(hereinafterreferred to astheCode)accompanied by another application under Section 5ofLimitation Act has been filed seeking restoration ofthis appeal. This was in December, 2015 The application under Section 5ofthe Limitation Act was allowed vide order dated 11.4.2016 and the matter was relisted for hearing on the pendmg application under OrderIXRule 4ofthe Code.
^ lite order impugned before this Court is the order dated
1.5.2016. Learned District Judge had dismissed the application of hepetitioner underOrderIX Rule 4ofthe Code. The reasons have een enumerated and the same have beenperused. remanded!".T ^-n
ITot b! : imitation Act seeking condonation ofdelay of80 days has been allowed in his favour yet the Court had come to the coneluston that grounds for allowing his application under Order IX
Rule4ofthe Codewerenotmade out. Atthe costofrepetition,this
Courtnotesthatsincethepetitionerhasnotbeengrantedahearingon mertts, this Court is ofthe view that the impugned order to be set aside.
Since the delay has already been condoned, it will not be a hurdle on the hearing ofthe main appeal which is now restored back to Its original number; the appeal shall be heard on its merit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits thathe has an apprehension that he may be prejudiced in his arguments beforethe concernedDistrictJudge, Dwarka because ofthe litigation whichhasendedupinthis orderwhichhasnowbeenimpugned. This submissionhas beenrefilledbylearned counsel forrespondent.
This Court need not delve into this issue any further but considenng the submissions and counter submissions as also perusal
Othe record, this Courtis ofthe viewthat it would he expedientand mteinterest ofjustice if the District Judge, Patiala House would near the appeal inquestion.
Copyofthis orderbe sentto DistrictJudge, Dwarkawho may ensurethatthe file ofthis case be transmitted to the CourtofDistrict ofth? f inview ofthe aforenoted discussion on its merits
P«. IT"'" Petition disposed of.
Orderdasti undersignatures ofthe (/ourtMaster.
SEPTEMBER 30,2016 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
30.09.2016 Petitioner before this Court is Lt.Col. Anil Bhat (retired), state Officer had passed orders dated 27.4.2004, 17.5.2004 and
16A2004 qua the allotted accommodation of the petitioner ie
5/ 92, Arjun Vihar. Against this order, an appeal was fUed under ec,on 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Oc upants) Act, 1971 before the concerned Appellate Body iethe
DtstnctJudge. This appeal was allowed on 0232012 A \- otdertherespondentTJepartmenthadtileda eIn ^ petition {WP(C) 3454/2012 disposed of by a Bench was ch of this Court on 14.5 2015 Mcff remanded back tn Matter was
" oacK to the concerned District Tnrirv ^ iJistrict Judge to consider the fresh
2016:DHC:8649 contentionsraised bythepetitionerherein. Tieparties were directed to appear before the concerned District Judge on 08.7.2015. This is where the confusion lies.
Contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was under bona fide impression that the concerned District would be the Court of District Judge Patiala House Court whereas his appearance was required before the concerned District Judge at
Dwarka.
This had led to the appeal being listed before the concerned
District Judge, Dwarka; the appeal was dismissed in default there.
This wason 25.8.2015.
An application under Section IX Rule 4ofthe Code ofCivil
Procedure, 1908(hereinafterreferred to astheCode)accompanied by another application under Section 5ofLimitation Act has been filed seeking restoration ofthis appeal. This was in December, 2015 The application under Section 5ofthe Limitation Act was allowed vide order dated 11.4.2016 and the matter was relisted for hearing on the pendmg application under OrderIXRule 4ofthe Code.
^ lite order impugned before this Court is the order dated
1.5.2016. Learned District Judge had dismissed the application of hepetitioner underOrderIX Rule 4ofthe Code. The reasons have een enumerated and the same have beenperused. remanded!".T ^-n
ITot b! : imitation Act seeking condonation ofdelay of80 days has been allowed in his favour yet the Court had come to the coneluston that grounds for allowing his application under Order IX
Rule4ofthe Codewerenotmade out. Atthe costofrepetition,this
Courtnotesthatsincethepetitionerhasnotbeengrantedahearingon mertts, this Court is ofthe view that the impugned order to be set aside.
Since the delay has already been condoned, it will not be a hurdle on the hearing ofthe main appeal which is now restored back to Its original number; the appeal shall be heard on its merit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits thathe has an apprehension that he may be prejudiced in his arguments beforethe concernedDistrictJudge, Dwarka because ofthe litigation whichhasendedupinthis orderwhichhasnowbeenimpugned. This submissionhas beenrefilledbylearned counsel forrespondent.
This Court need not delve into this issue any further but considenng the submissions and counter submissions as also perusal
Othe record, this Courtis ofthe viewthat it would he expedientand mteinterest ofjustice if the District Judge, Patiala House would near the appeal inquestion.
Copyofthis orderbe sentto DistrictJudge, Dwarkawho may ensurethatthe file ofthis case be transmitted to the CourtofDistrict ofth? f inview ofthe aforenoted discussion on its merits
P«. IT"'" Petition disposed of.
Orderdasti undersignatures ofthe (/ourtMaster.
SEPTEMBER 30,2016 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
JUDGMENT