Delhi High Court
Dilawar Singh Rawat vs M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro ... on 22 September, 2020
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(OS) 35/2020
DILAWAR SINGH RAWAT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.R. Chawla and Ms. Renu
Verma, Advs.
Versus
ANJANEYA BISANPUR AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Vibhav
Mishra, Ms. Aditi Gupta, MR. Satvik
Bajaj and Ms. Smriti Dua, Advs. for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 22.09.2020
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CMs No.23384/2020 & 23385/2020 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
RFA(OS) No.35/2020 & CM No.23383/2020 (for ex-parte ad-interim
order)
3. This Regular First Appeal (RFA) Original Side (OS), as permitted to
be preferred against a judgment and decree of a Single Judge of this Court
exercising Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, has been filed impugning
the judgment dated 17th August, 2020 of a Single Judge of this Court,
allowing CM(M) No.1729/2019, under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, preferred against the order dated 22nd November, 2019 of the Court of
Additional District Judge (ADJ)-03 (South), Saket, New Delhi dismissing an
application, filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in CS/DJ/No.490/2018 of
that Court, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) for decree on admissions of the suit for recovery of possession of
immovable property; the Single Judge, while exercising supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, finding the order
of the ADJ to be erroneous and in failure of the exercise of jurisdiction and
having been passed ignoring the law laid down by this Court and thus being
perverse, has set aside the said order of the ADJ and consequently, while
allowing the application of the appellant/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of
the CPC, passed a decree for possession, in favour of the respondent
No.1/plaintiff and against the appellant and respondent No.2/defendants.
4. Being of the view that the decree having been passed by a Single
Judge of this Court, though in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, this RFA(OS) is not maintainable, the counsel for
the appellant has been asked to address.
5. It is felt that there is a difference in the decree passed by a Single
Judge of this Court in exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction and a
decree passed by this Court while exercising revisional or supervisory or
appellate jurisdiction against the orders of the Civil Judges/ADJs, while
exercising such jurisdiction, whenever the order of the Civil Judge/ADJ
denying a decree is found to be erroneous and liable to be set aside, while
setting aside the order, decree has to necessarily follow and though passed
by a Single Judge of this Court, cannot be equated with a decree passed by a
Single Judge of this Court while exercising Ordinary Original Civil
Jurisdiction in adjudication of suits permitted to be filed directly before this
Court.
6. The law in this regard is not in dispute. Reference can be made to
Ashok K. Jha Vs. Garden Silk Mills (2009) 10 SCC 584, Ram Kishan
Fauji Vs. State of Haryana (2017) 5 SCC 533, Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji
Vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 9 SCC 1, Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram
Cement (2008) 14 SCC 58 and Umaji Keshao Meshram Vs. Radhikabai
AIR 1986 SC 1272, all holding that against an order of the High Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India no
intra court appeal lies.
7. The counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff appearing on advance
notice, in addition has referred to Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329.
8. The counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 refers to Namdeo
Devangan Vs. Seetaram AIR 1998 MP 148, which is a judgment of the
Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, holding that the words
"any Court exercising original jurisdiction" in Section 96 of the CPC have to
be read to mean that if the original jurisdiction has been exercised by any
Court, the decree passed shall be deemed to be a decree by a Court
exercising original jurisdiction and taking any other view shall lead to
absurdity and render the litigant remediless.
9. In view of the clear enunciation on the subject by the Supreme Court,
though we do not deem it necessary to discuss the judgment of the Single
Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but we mention that the words
'decree passed by any Court' in Section 96 of the CPC are followed by the
words 'exercising original jurisdiction'. Certainly, the Single Judge of this
Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India cannot be said to be exercising original jurisdiction.
The reasoning adopted by the appellant in preferring this appeal is erroneous
for this reason also.
10. Not only so, this Court exercises ordinary original jurisdiction, of
entertaining suits above a certain pecuniary value, by virtue of Section 5 of
the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The appeals from the decrees of the Single
Judge exercising such jurisdiction, to the Division Bench lie under Section
10 of the said Act and which also provides for appeals from the judgment
and decree of the Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 5 of the
Act. Again, the Single Judge exercising supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was not exercising jurisdiction
under Section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act.
11. The counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 has also referred us to
Deep Chand Vs. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1994 SC 1901 but which is
pertaining to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and reliance whereon is not
apposite.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1
withdraws the appeal and states that court fees on the appeal has also been
paid.
13. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
14. A certificate entitling the appellant to refund of the court fees paid be
issued and handed over to the counsel for the appellant.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
'bs'
