Amrit Agencies Pvt. Limited vs Nu Tech Security Printers
2009 Latest Caselaw 5294 Del

*                   HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                Judgment reserved on : December 04, 2009
                Judgment delivered on : December 18, 2009

+                          F.A.O. (OS) No. 593/2009 &
                              C.M. No. 17134/2009

%       Amrit Agencies Pvt. Limited           ...   Appellant
                  Through: Mr. Anil Kher, Senior Advocate with
                               Mr.Shashi Shekhar, Advocate.

                                    versus

        Nu Tech Security Printers           ...   Respondent
                  Through: Mr. J.S. Bakshi and Mr. S.S. Sobti,
                               Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.      Whether the Reporters of local
        papers may be allowed to see
        the judgment?

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.      Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. The rejection of Appellant/Defendant's application under

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is under challenge in this

appeal.

2. Four suits for recovery of money were filed by M/s. Nu Tech

Securities Printers and M/s. K.L. Shroff against the Appellant/

Defendant and M/s. Ram Agency and Others pertaining to paper F.A.O. (OS) No. 593/2009 Page 1 supplied and printing carried out in respect of lottery tickets of

Government of Nagaland. Due to change of pecuniary jurisdiction,

three out of these four suits, whose details are noted in para 2 of the

impugned order, i.e., (b) to (d), were transferred to the District Courts

and there the recording of evidence was completed and now, these

three suits are listed for final disposal. Whereas, in the fourth suit

pending in this Court i.e. C.S. (OS) No.408/1989, the recording of

evidence is yet to begin.

3. The three reasons, which had weighed with the learned Single

Judge to decline Appellant's application under Section 24 of the Code

of Civil Procedure deserves to be noted with approval and they are as

under:-

"(i) that the evidence in all the three suits pending before the Additional District Judges has already been recorded and now they are fixed for final disposal on 27th October, 2009 and 11th November, 2009 before Ms. Shail Jain, Additional District Judge for final arguments and third suit is listed on 4th November, 2009 before Shri Dinesh Bhatt, Additional District Judge, Delhi for final disposal; on the other hand, in the suit pending in High Court the evidence is yet to be record.

(ii) It is not denied by the parties that although some of the parties are common, however the cause of action and documents involved in the four suits relate to different transactions. Therefore, in my considered view the suits pending in the District Court can be decided as per their own merits. At this stage, the said prayer cannot be granted.

F.A.O. (OS) No. 593/2009                                                      Page 2
                 (iii)      As far as the present suit is concerned,
                           learned counsel for Defendant No.3 to 7 has

argued that the Plaintiff has not produced the evidence in time, therefore, it is all the more feasible that the suits mentioned above as (b) to (d) may be withdrawn from the Court and consolidated and be considered with the present suit. I do not agree with the contention of Defendant No.3 to 7 even as it appears from the record, since the present application filed by the Defendant No.3 to 7 is pending for the last more than three years, therefore, none of the parties has taken any care to proceed further in the matter on merit."

4. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant has drawn our

attention to an initial interim order of 15th November, 1991, passed by

the learned Single Judge directing that all these four suits be listed

together on the next date of hearing and the pleadings be completed

before they are listed. In any case, this interim order does not

consolidate these four suits and admittedly change of pecuniary

jurisdiction took place much thereafter. Our attention has been also

drawn by learned senior counsel for the Appellant to an interim order

of 11th July, 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge while

entertaining Appellant's application under Section 24 of the Code of

Civil Procedure had permitted the concerned trial courts in the three

suits pending before them, to hear the final arguments but had

restrained them from pronouncing the judgment. What has been

urged on behalf of the Appellant is that despite numerous

opportunities and imposition of costs, Respondent/Plaintiff is not

proceeding with the suit in question i.e. C.S. (OS) No. 408/1989 and

F.A.O. (OS) No. 593/2009 Page 3 now the next date before the concerned Registrar for recording of

evidence is in March, 2010. It has been stressed by learned senior

counsel for the Appellant that the basis of his claim and the liability of

the Defendants in all these four suits is the same and to avoid

conflicting decisions, it would be in the interest of justice to have them

decided by one Court. This is controverted by learned Counsel for the

Respondent who asserts that all these four suits are based on distinct

cause of action and arise out of separate transactions between

separate entities and the amounts claimed are on the basis of

different invoices.

5. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondent

that the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction, which led to the transfer

of three suits to the District Courts, took place on 12th November,

2003 and the Appellant/Defendant ought to have filed the application

under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure then, but Appellant

has deliberately filed the same in the year 2006 with the sole

objective of delaying early conclusion of the proceedings in these

three suits. However, it has been asserted that without any demur the

suit proceedings in the three suits had reached the stage of final

arguments, about three years ago i.e. on 16th December, 2006 and at

that stage, present application has been filed to delay the final

decision in these three pending suits.

F.A.O. (OS) No. 593/2009 Page 4

6. After having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal

of the record of this case, it becomes quite evident that

Appellant/Defendant with a sole objective of delaying the disposal of

the four suits had filed the present application under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Single Judge, when the

remaining three suits had reached the final stage in the District

Courts. By securing an interim order from the learned Single Judge,

Appellant/Defendant has managed to successfully delay for nearly

three years the disposal of the three suits, which were at ripe stage in

the District Courts. All that we can say is, it is indeed unfortunate.

7. The aforementioned three reasons put forth by the learned

Single Judge to dismiss the Appellant's application under Section 24

of the Code of Civil Procedure are cogent and weighty. Though,

learned Single Judge has been lenient in dismissing

Appellant/Defendant's application under Section 24 of CPC without

costs, but we find that not only the application under Section 24 of

CPC was misconceived, but this appeal too is misconceived.

Consequently, this appeal and the pending application are dismissed

with costs, which is quantified at Rs.20,000/-.

8. Before parting with this order, we would like to ensure that the

three suits, which are pending before the District Courts are decided

expeditiously and the hearing of the suit pending before the learned

Single Judge is also expedited. We are informed that in C.S. (OS) F.A.O. (OS) No. 593/2009 Page 5 No. 408/1989, the date fixed before the concerned Registrar for

recording the evidence is in March, 2010. The concerned Registrar is

directed to prepone the date of recording of evidence from March,

2010 to January, 2010. The concerned Additional District Judges,

before whom remaining three suits are pending, being Suit

No.409/1989 titled as M/s. NuTech Security Printers vs. M/s. Ram

Agency and others; Suit No.405/1989 titled as M/s. K.L. Shroff vs.

M/s. Ram Agency and others; and Suit No.407/1989 titled as M/s.

K.L. Shroff vs. M/s. Shanti Agency and others, are also directed to

expeditiously decide the same, preferably within three months of the

dates already fixed in these suits. Summoned record be sent back

forthwith. Registry to ensure compliance of this order within two

weeks.

9. This appeal stands disposed of, with directions as aforesaid.

Sunil Gaur, J.

Vikramajit Sen, J.

December 18, 2009
pkb




F.A.O. (OS) No. 593/2009                                              Page 6