Delhi High Court
Preeti Sehgal vs Sarla Sehgal And Anr on 8 January, 2018
#11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 08.01.2018
RFA(OS) 89/2016 & CM Nos.42235-36/2016 & 44918/2016
PREETI SEHGAL ..... Appellant
versus
SARLA SEHGAL AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Maitri, Advocate with Ms. Radhika Chandershekhar,
Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. B.B. Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Prity Sharma and Ms. Rijuta
Mohanty, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 read with 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assails a
preliminary decree dated 20.01.2016, passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court in CS(OS) No.585/2011; tilted as 'Preeti Sehgal vs. Sarla Sehgal
& Anr.'.
2. It is an admitted position that the impugned judgment and preliminary
decree dated 20.01.2016 was impugned by the appellant in FAO (OS)
No.54/2016; titled as "Preeti Sehgal vs. Sarla Sehgal & Anr.", which after a
detailed hearing came to be dismissed on merits by a Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 30.05.2016.
3. It is further an admitted position that the appellant sought a review of
the said order dated 30.05.2016, by way of Review Petition No.308/2016,
which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2016.
4. The appellant then assailed the said order dated 30.05.2016 by way of
a Special Leave Petition, being SLP No.19233/2016, which also came to be
dismissed as withdrawn, on the submission made by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, vide order dated 20.10. 2016.
5. The matter did not rest there and the appellant sought another review
of the said order dated 30.05.2016, by way of Review Petition No.507/2016,
which also came to be dismissed as withdrawn, on the submission made by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, vide order dated
02.12.2016.
6. A plain reading of the above would reflect that the said order of the
Division Bench dated 30.05.2016, which assailed the impugned judgment
and preliminary decree dated 20.01.2016, has attained finality. It is further
observed that the said order dated 30.05.2016 was rendered after hearing
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, on merits.
7. It is also relevant to observe that the present appeal assailing the
impugned judgment and preliminary decree dated 20.01.2016 was instituted
on behalf of the appellant during the pendency of the said Review Petition
No.507/2016.
8. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the present
appeal has a larger scope than the said FAO (OS) 54/2016; instituted by
them against the very same impugned judgment and preliminary decree
dated 20.01.2016, and that the institution of the said FAO (OS) 54/2016 was
due to an inadvertent error on the part of the appellant.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances which obtain in the
present appeal, in our view, the present appeal is not maintainable, inasmuch
as:
(i) The impugned judgment and preliminary decree dated
20.01.2016 has already been tested in appeal by a
Division Bench of this Court in the said FAO (OS)
54/2016, whereby, the same was upheld vide said order
dated 30.05.2016, and has, consequently, attained
finality;
(ii) The appellant now seeks to reopen the issues that arose in
the said FAO(OS) 54/2016, on the specious ground that
she fell into an inadvertent error in instituting that appeal,
rather than the present one, against the impugned
judgment and preliminary decree dated 20.01.2016;
(iii) The appellant now seeks a review/reversal of the said
order of the Division Bench of this Court dated
30.05.2016, by way of the present appeal, which is
patently impermissible in law; and
(iv) The appellant is attempting to wriggle out of the finality
of the impugned judgment and preliminary decree dated
20.01.2016, as upheld by the said order of the Division
Bench dated 30.05.2016 in FAO (OS) 54/2016; by
ingeniously asserting that the institution of the said FAO
(OS) 54/2016 was an inadvertent error on her part.
10. In view of the foregoing, we are in complete agreement with the
observations made by the predecessor Bench, as recorded in the order dated
06.07.2017, to the effect that ".....The appellant has now filed the present
RFA (OS) 89/2016 impugning the same order which was the subject matter
of FAO (OS) 54/2016. The appellant will explain now the present RFA (OS)
is maintainable when the FAO (OS) was dismissed on merits"; and have
tested the present appeal on that cornerstone. The result, in our view, having
heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, is that the present
appeal is not maintainable on account of the circumstance that the said FAO
(OS) 54/2016; assailing the very same impugned judgment and preliminary
decree dated 20.01.2016, was dismissed on merits by way of said order dated
30.05.2016 passed therein, which order has attained finality.
11. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant is liable to
compensate the other side for having agitated his grievance against the
impugned judgment and preliminary decree 20.01.2016; after it had attained
finality, repeatedly and, thereby, also consumed precious court time.
12. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with cost quantified to the sum of
Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi, within a
period of two weeks from today. All pending applications also stand
disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 08, 2018
dn
