Dr. K.S.Sidhu vs The Registrar, Indian Council Of ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6300 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of Decision: November 28, 2014

+     RSA 365/2014 & CM Nos.19550-19551/2014
      DR. K.S.SIDHU                                      ..... Appellant
                         Through:      In person with
                                       Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate

                         versus

      THE REGISTRAR, INDIAN COUNCIL
      OF ARBITRATION                                     ..... Respondent
                   Through: None

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

A suit for recovery of `5,02,500/- with interest and costs stood decreed by the concerned Additional District Judge against respondent herein who had challenged the judgment and decree of 4 th June, 2013 of trial court by way of Regular First Appeal No.341/2013, which has been allowed and the cross objections of appellant herein have been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned judgment of 8 th January, 2014. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the said judgment of 8th January, 2014.

At the outset, learned counsel for appellant herein had submitted that this second appeal lies before a Division Bench of this Court and had submitted that it be so directed. Attention of this Court was drawn to

RSA No.365/2014 Page 1 Chapter 3, Part B of Delhi High Court Rules to point out that First Appeal from the decree of a subordinate court has to be heard by Single Judge of this Court and according to learned counsel, Rule 4 of Part B in Chapter 3 of the aforesaid Rules provides that further appeal lies before a Division Bench against dismissal of Regular First Appeal by a Single Judge of this Court. Rule 4 of Part B in Chapter 3 of the aforesaid Rules is as under:-

"All cases to be disposed of by a Bench of two Judges save as provided by law or by these rules- Save as provided by law or by these rules or by special order of the Chief Justice, all cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges."

Upon hearing appellant and his counsel on the maintainability of this appeal and on perusal of aforesaid quoted Rule 4 in Part B of Chapter 3 of the above said Rules, I find that Rule 4 does not pertain to cases disposed of under the Code of Civil Procedure and so in the considered opinion of this Court, second appeal would not lie before a Division Bench of this Court.

In view of aforesaid, this appeal and the applications are dismissed as not maintainable.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
NOVEMBER 28, 2014
vn




RSA No.365/2014                                                     Page 2