A Ramasamy And Anr. vs Delhi Tamil Education ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2190 Del

$~J
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                Judgment reserved on: 05.02.2016
                                                Judgment delivered on: 18.03.2016
+       Rev. Pet. No.18/2016 in CS(OS) 3622/2014
        A RAMASAMY AND ANR.                      ..... Plaintiffs
                    Through Mr. Akhil Sibal, Mr.Pravin Sharma,
                            Ms.Kanika Sharma & Mr. Nikhil
                            Chawla, Advocates
                    versus
        DELHI TAMIL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
        AND ANR.                               ..... Defendants
                      Through Mr. U.K. Shandilya & Mr.Amit Punj,
                              Advocates

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

                                           JUDGMENT

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. By the present review petition filed under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 Read with Section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiffs seek review of the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by this Court.

2. As per the review petition, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit on 25.11.2014 seeking various reliefs regarding the elections that were held for defendant No.1 society on 30.11.2014. Arguments were heard on various dates, including 29.04.2015. This court reserved judgment on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 29.04.2015.

3. In the meantime, the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force whereby pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court on the original side was enhanced from Rs.20,00,000.00 to more than

Rs.2,00,00,000.00. This was followed by an Office Order issued by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 24.11.2015. The relevant portion of the said office order provides that all pending suits on the Original Side upto the value of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 will stand transferred to the concerned District Courts, except those matters in which final judgments have been reserved.

4. In view of the said Act and Office Order, this court had on 21.12.2015 after hearing both sides decided that the present suit would have to be transferred and merely because judgment had been reserved in an interlocutory application and in which judgments had not been pronounced could not to be the basis to retain the suit in this court, even for the limited purpose of pronouncing of the reserved judgment on the said application.

5. This court held that the only exception carved out by the Office Order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 24.11.2015 was with regard to the matters in which "final judgment" has been reserved. Hence, matters in which the suit is valued at upto Rs.1,00,00,000.00 and final judgment is reserved, would not stand transferred. However, the term "final judgment" is not defined in the office order or in the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015.This court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr., AIR 1981 SCC 1786 and held that a final judgment would be where the judgment decides questions/issues in controversy and leaves nothing to be decided. The stay or action sought by the plaintiff by such judgment would be either dismissed or decreed in part or in full. Such an eventuality will not take place while disposing of an interlocutory application. In the facts of the present case what was pending was an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. A judgment on the said application may or may not have resulted in disposal of

the suit in full. If the application was dismissed, the suit would remain pending.

6. Hence, against the said judgment dated 21.12.2015 the present Review Petition has been filed. Notice was issued to the non-applicant on 22.01.2016. On the last date of hearing, an opportunity was given to the defendants to file reply to the present review petition. Nothing has been filed. No further time has been sought by the defendants today.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs have urged the following grounds to review order dated 21.12.2015:

i) Office Order issued by Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 24.11.2015 is silent about the outcome of the matters in which judgment is reserved on interim applications and not pronounced. He urges that it is implicit in this that the suit will be transferred only after the judgment is pronounced by the court. To support his contention, he submits that Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 does not state that on the passing of the Amendment Act suits below the said pecuniary jurisdiction which are pending in this court stand transferred to the concerned District Courts. The said Section only states that in pending matters the Hon'ble Chief Justice may transfer any suit which is pending before commencement of this Act to the concerned Subordinate Court. He also relies on the Office Order dated 24.11.2015 which states that transfer of cases to the Subordinate Courts will commence from 24.11.2015. He urges that there is no

time limit when the transfer can take place. All matters ipso facto are not to be transferred on 24.11.2015. Hence, this court would be able to pronounce judgments in the pending IAs before transferring the suit.

ii) Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pujya Sindhi Panchayat v. Prof. C.L. Mishra & Ors., AIR 2002 Raj 274 (MANU/RH/0293/2002) to contend that where hearing is completed, the parties have no further rights or privileges. It is only for the convenience of the court that Order 20 Rule 1 CPC permits judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed. There is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncing it.

iii) It is urged that where there is ambiguity in the issue, the office order should be interpreted in a manner so that the reserved judgment in the IAs may be pronounced before transferring of the suits. He submits that such an interpretation would be in favour of the parties as precious judicial time would not be wasted which was spent on hearing the parties.

iv) He also submits that in these facts and circumstances, this court would not denude its jurisdiction.

9. The learned counsel for the defendants submits that till date even pleadings are not complete in the suit and the suit cannot be disposed of. He

also submits that there are no grounds made out for review of the order passed by this court on 21.12.2015.

10. In my opinion, there is no ambiguity in the office order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The relevant portion of the said office order being Notification No.27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated 24.11.2015 reads as follows:-

"(i) All suits or other proceedings pending in the Delhi High Court on the Original Side up to the value of rupees one crore, excepting those cases in which final judgments have been reserved, be transferred to the jurisdictional subordinate courts."

(ii) All suits or other proceedings the value of which exceeds rupees one crore but does not exceed rupees two crores, other than those relating to commercial disputes the specified value of which is not less than rupees one crore (as defined in The Comercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015), pending in the Delhi High Court on the Original Side, excepting those cases in which final judgments have been reserved, be transferred to the jurisdictional subordinate courts.

The transfer of cases to the subordinate courts shall commence from today, i.e. 24.11.2015."

11. Hence, if a suit falls in the above category the matter has to be transferred to the jurisdictional subordinate courts. The stress of the learned counsel for the applicant on the last line of the Office Order that transfer of cases to subordinate courts shall commence from today does not in any manner alter/dilute the mandatory nature of the aforesaid sub clause (i). The transfers cannot take place in one day for administrative reasons. It has to be in a phased manner subject to administrative convenience. It cannot mean that pending the transfer as stipulated in the Office Order, judicial orders/adjudication can take place in the pending suits.

12. Further, the reliance of the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the case of Pujya Sindhi Panchayat vs. Prof.C.L.Mishra & Ors. (supra) is misplaced. The said judgment pertains to a public interest litigation filed regarding an alleged unauthorized temple. The judgment that was reserved in the said matter was the final judgment which would have led to either dismissal of the writ petition or allowing/partially allowing the writ petition. After the judgment was reserved, and before the final judgment was pronounced an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC had been filed which was not dealt with by the Court when pronouncing the judgment. It was in those facts that the Court held relying upon order 20 Rule 1 CPC that there are only two stages in the trial of a matter (i) where the hearing is adjourned

(ii) where hearing is completed. When hearing is completed the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that order 20 Rule 1 CPC permits judgment to be delivered after an interval. All these observations were made in the context of a final judgment and not judgment on a pending application.

13. There is no doubt true that my interpretation of the office order dated 24.11.2015 may result in some hardship to some of the parties on account of the fact that the applications would have to be heard all over again by the concerned trial court. But I would be bound by the mandatory nature of the office order.

14. No error apparent on the face of the record is made out. There is no merit in the present petition. Same is dismissed.

JAYANT NATH, J.

MARCH 18, 2016/v