9$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (OS) 230/2014 & CM No.8135/2014 (for stay)
RAKESH KUMAR JUNEJA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. R.M. Bagai & Ms. Damini
Khaira, Advs.
Versus
HANS RAJ VIJ & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Rekha Palli with Ms. Punam
Singh & Ms. Garima Sachdeva,
Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 22.07.2014
1. The appeal impugns the order dated 25 th March, 2014 of the learned Single Judge exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction in CS(OS) No.1901/2001 filed by the appellants / plaintiffs. The appeal came up before this Court first on 9th May, 2014 when the counsel for the respondent / defendant no.1 appeared and accepted notice of the appeal. Service of the notice on the respondent / defendant no.2 who is ex parte before the learned Single Judge was dispensed with. Similarly service of the notice of the appeal on the respondents / defendants no.3&4 being proforma parties was also dispensed and the appeal posted for hearing on 8 th July, 2014. We have heard the counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs and the counsel for the FAO (OS) 230/2014 Page 1 of 5 respondent / defendant no.1.
2. The prayer paragraph in the Memorandum of Appeal besides seeking setting aside of the order dated 25th March, 2014 also seeks allowing of IA No. 6897/2013 and IA No.17857/2013 filed by the appellants / plaintiffs.
3. IA No. 6897/2013 was filed seeking permission to place on record the
(i) Report dated 14th April, 2004 submitted by the SHO Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi; (ii) Judgment dated 14 th December, 2009 passed by this Court; (iii) Order dated 15 th April, 2013 passed by the Supreme Court; and, (iv) Certified copy of Criminal Writ Petition No.48/1992 along with its annexures and the written statement of the defendant no.2. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order has already permitted the appellants / plaintiffs to place on record the judgment dated 14th December, 2009 and the order dated 15th April, 2013. There is no discussion in the impugned order under IA No. 6897/2013 that the other documents also sought to be produced vide the same application were not being permitted. The grievance urged by the counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs is that the other documents sought to be produced were not permitted. In our opinion, the non-mentioning thereof in the impugned order is obviously an inadvertent error / omission. The impugned order FAO (OS) 230/2014 Page 2 of 5 appears to have been dictated in the open Court and the counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs ought to have at that time only pointed out that other two documents sought to be produced were not mentioned. Moreover even if they were inadvertently missed out, the appellants / plaintiffs, instead of preferring this appeal, could have applied to the learned Single Judge only. This appeal to the said extent is clearly misconceived.
4. Be that as it may, the counsel for the respondent / defendant no.1 states that she did not / does not have any objection to the other documents also for which permission was sought, being taken on record. We order accordingly. On request of the counsels, we further clarify that all the documents so taken on record are without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties.
5. IA No. 17857/2013 was filed by the appellants / plaintiffs for summoning / tagging of the file of CS(OS) No.3416/1992 titled Shri Rakesh Juneja & Others Vs. Baba Chakravorty Darvesh & Others decided on 6th October, 1998 along with the suit file. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the said application was, on 25 th March, 2014 merely adjourned for disposal to 14th July, 2014. It is thus not as if the said application has been dismissed, for the appellants / plaintiffs to prefer FAO (OS) 230/2014 Page 3 of 5 this appeal. In fact it was again for the appellants / plaintiffs to on that date itself press the said application before the learned Single Judge. The appeal is certainly not maintainable against an order merely adjourning the hearing of the application.
6. Be that as it may, the counsel for the respondent / defendant no.1 again stated that she has no objection to the said tagging. We order accordingly.
7. The counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs has also argued that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order to the appellants / plaintiffs to appear before the Investigating Officer on 14th April, 2014 at 10.00 AM is erroneous. We find the said direction also to be merely sequential to the orders dated 28th February, 2013 and 8th April, 2013 of the Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) No.625/2010 arising from the same suit. Vide order dated 28th February, 2013, on the request of both the parties, the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police was directed to investigate the various documents of title floating around qua the suit property and to come to a conclusion as to which is the correct chain of title. Vide subsequent order dated 8th April, 2013, though the counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs sought to withdraw from the consent earlier given, FAO (OS) 230/2014 Page 4 of 5 was not permitted to do so. There is thus no merit in the appeal to the said effect also.
Dismissed.
We refrain from imposing any costs on the appellants / plaintiffs.
CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 22, 2014 pp FAO (OS) 230/2014 Page 5 of 5