Delhi High Court
Indian Renewable Energy ... vs Debts Recovery Appellate ... on 18 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: 127 (2006) DLT 158
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 16.9.2005. It appears that some proceedings are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In those proceedings, an application was made by respondent No.2 for cross-examination of two persons who had filed their affidavits. The application was rejected by the DRT. Against the order rejecting the application for cross-examination, an appeal was filed which has been partly allowed by the impugned order inasmuch as cross-examination of one of the deponents has been allowed.
2. It is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against an interlocutory order.
3. In The Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand the question was about the construction of Section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. That provision gave a right of appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal 'from every order of the Controller made under the Act'.
4. The Supreme Court observed that the words 'every order of the Controller made under this Act', though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. In a pending proceeding, the Controller may pass many interlocutory orders under Sections 36 and 37, such as orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing etc. All these interlocutory orders are steps taken towards the final adjudication. They regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties. It is only where an interim order affects the rights or liabilities of a party that he can file an appeal to the Controller.
5. In National Council for Cement and Building Materials v. State of Haryana (1996) 3 SCC 306 the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court which refused to intervene in the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal at an interlocutory stage.
6. It is true that a Writ of Certiorari will lie when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, vide Hari Vishnu Kamat v. Ahmed . However, it has also to be remembered that writ is a discretionary remedy, vide Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan . Hence, even if an interlocutory order suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record, this Court is not bound to interfere, if as a result of such an error, no rights or liabilities of a party are affected, or the Court for some other reason is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226.
7. The order of the DRAT as well as of the DRT, in our opinion, do not affect the rights or liabilities of the petitioner, and hence there is no good ground to interfere with the same in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. An order allowing or rejecting an application for cross examination is only an interlocutory order. In the present case by the interlocutory order the application for cross examination has been partly allowed. In our opinion, this does not give rise to any cause of action. It is only when the final order is passed by the DRT disposing the proceedings before it finally that a cause of action will arise. In any event, writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and a writ petition is not ordinarily entertained against an interlocutory order.
9. The impugned appellate order of the DRAT was against the interim order of DRT rejecting the application for cross examination. An appeal is only a continuation of the original proceedings, and since the original order is an interlocutory order of the DRT, the order of the DRAT in substance is also interim in nature, that is, an interim order arising out of the proceedings before the DRT.
10. On the facts of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case.
11. The petition is dismissed.
12. However, if and when any final order is passed by the DRT against the petitioner he can, in any appeal he files to the DRAT, take the points he has taken in this writ petition.
