Delhi High Court
Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. vs Mohd. Furman on 25 October, 2010
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
C R P No. 127/2010 & CM No. 12080/2010
% Judgment reserved on: 30th September, 2010
Judgment delivered on: 25th October, 2010
1. Smt. Shanti Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
2. Sh. Ajay Sharma,
S/o late Sh. Om Prakash.
3. Smt. Vijay,
W/o Late Sh. Mool Chand.
4. Smt. Vinay,
W/o Sh. Yashpal.
5. Smt. Suman,
W/o Sh. Sreepal.
6. Smt. Sunita,
W/o Sh. Sunil.
7. Smt. Sugain,
W/o Sh. Vijay Pal.
8. Smt. Neetu,
W/o Sh. Jasbir,
All C/o 2892/1A, Chowk Singhara,
Qutab Road, Delhi-110 006.
(LRs No.1 & 3 to 8 represented
through constituted Attorney
Shri Ajay Sharma (LR. No. 2).
....Petitioners.
CRP No. 127/2010 Page 1 of 5
Through: Mr. V. K. Khurana, Adv.
Versus
Mohd. Furman,
S/o abdul Salam,
R/o 9025, Ram Bagh Road,
Phool Ban Garhi, Delhi.
....Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 (for short as „Code‟) has been filed on behalf of
petitioners challenging order dated 28th April, 2010 passed by
Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi. Vide impugned order, application
under Order 22 rule 4 read with Section 151 and Order 22 rule 9 of the
Code, of respondent was allowed.
2. Respondent had filed a suit for possession and injunction
against Om Parkash (since deceased). Petitioners who are the legal
heirs of deceased-Om Parkash, have already been brought on record as
application under Order 22 rule 4 of the Code filed by respondent was
allowed.
3. On 14th July, 2010, when present petition came up for hearing,
it was noted by this Court that petitioners have not stated in the entire
petition as to what proceedings have taken place in the trial court after
passing of impugned order and what was the stage. Counsel for
petitioners stated that he does not know about the next date of hearing
before the trial court. Accordingly, counsel was directed to file
certified copies of the trial court proceedings, after 28th April, 2010,
within two weeks.
4. On 30th August, 2010, learned counsel for petitioners pointed
out that suit of respondent has already been decreed on 31st July, 2010.
Petitioners counsel sought time to file the certified copy of the
judgment, which was filed later on.
5. Since, trial court has already decreed the suit in favour of the
respondent and against the petitioners, it was pointed out to the
learned counsel for petitioners that present petition, under these
circumstances is not maintainable. However, learned counsel insisted
that present revision petition even then is maintainable. In support
learned counsel, cited following judgments;
i) East India Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Vs. S. P. Gupta,
28 (1985) Delhi Law Times 22and
ii) Siri Krishan Bhardwaj Vs. Manohar Lal Gupta,
AIR 1977 Delhi 226;
6. As suit for possession and injunction filed against petitioners
has already been decreed on 31st July, 2010, present petition
challenging order dated 28th April, 2010, vide which respondent‟s
application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was allowed, under
these circumstances has become infructuous. Judgments cited by
learned counsel for petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the
present case. It is well settled that,
"Once a suit is finally disposed of by the Civil Court,
all the interim as well as interlocutory orders passed
in the suit merges with the final order".
7. Since, decree has been passed by the trial court, the present
petition is not maintainable.
8. Present petition stands disposed of being infructuous.
CM No. 12080/2010
9. Dismissed.
25th October , 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J.
ab
