Rakesh Kumar Juneja & Ors vs Hans Raj Vij & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3264 Del

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

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

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

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,

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