Delhi High Court
Hari Ram vs Union Of India & Anr. on 11 January, 2021
$~22
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.01.2021
+ W.P.(C) 296/2021
HARI RAM ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 17.10.2020 passed by
the District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under
Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 on the ground of limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings
were taken up through video conferencing on account of COVID-19
lockdown and no notice was received by the petitioner and they were
not heard at the time when the impugned order was passed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:11.01.2021 20:38:08 W.P(C) 296/2021 Page 1
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
4. Learned counsel submits that the advocate for the petitioner
who had filed the appeal had expired on 17.04.2020 and no notice had
been received of the hearing of the appeal.
5. Learned counsel points out to the impugned order dated
17.10.2020 which also records that none had appeared for the
appellant and the Court had passed the order merely on the basis of
written arguments which were filed in August, 2019.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for the respondents. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken
up for final disposal today.
7. Petitioner has contended that at the time when the appeal was
taken up for disposal none was present on behalf of the petitioner. He
has also placed on record documents to show that the advocate for the
petitioner who had filed the appeal i.e. Mr. Shiv Prasad Verma had
already expired.
8. Since ex facie the petitioner was not heard at the time when the
impugned order dated 17.10.2020 was passed and even the advocate
who had filed the appeal had expired, the order dated 17.10.2020 is
not sustainable solely on that count.
9. In view of the above, order dated 17.10.2020 is set aside. The
matter is remitted to the Court of the District Judge for a fresh hearing
on the appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:11.01.2021 20:38:08 W.P(C) 296/2021 Page 2
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
10. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon the merits of the order and the order has been set
aside solely on the ground that petitioner was not heard at the time
when the order was passed.
11. List the appeal before the District Judge on 27.01.2021.
12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
13. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
JANUARY 11, 2021
rk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:11.01.2021 20:38:08 W.P(C) 296/2021 Page 3
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
