Rihana Begam v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

C.HARI SHANKAR, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 kks

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 16th September, 2019 + LPA 601/2019 & CM APPLs. 41262/2019 & 41263/2019 RIHANA BEGAM ..... Appellant Through: Md. Azam Ansari, Adv. versus DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Tarun Johri with Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advs. for DMRC. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) CM APPL. 41262/2019 (exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. LPA 601/2019 & CM APPL. 41263/2019 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose W.P.(C) No.8615/2019 is pending before the learned Single Judge and in the said writ petition following order has been passed: "The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief is claimed only against the respondent no.3. The other respondents are, therefore, deleted from the array of parties. The petitioner shall file an amended memo of parties within one week from today. Issue notice. Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). He prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the reply. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. List on 17th October, 2019." 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the appellant was in search of a stay against dispossession of the property which was under acquisition by respondent No.3/Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. 3. As stay has not been granted by the learned Single Judge and notice has been issued, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) and looking to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2019 in W.P.(C) No.8615/2019, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the reason that – firstly, notice has already been issued by the learned Single Judge and, secondly, the writ petition is already pending before the learned Single Judge. If the appellant wants to prepone the hearing of the said writ petition, request can always be made by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge for preponing the hearing. Otherwise, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal because no rights and liabilities of the parties have been decided by the order dated 26.08.2019. As the writ petition is already pending before the learned Single Judge, we are not analyzing the facts on record in the writ petition about the acquisition of the house by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation in lieu of the compensation. 5. An appeal, under the Letters Patent lies against a "judgment". The interpretation of the term "judgment" for the purposes of appealability under the Letters Patent, came in for incisive analysis by the Supreme Court, in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8. Paras 108 to 117, 119 and 120 of the said decision may, be reproduced thus: "108. The relevant portion of clause 15 of the letters patent may be extracted thus: "We do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bombay, Fort William in Bengal from the judgment ... of one Judge of the said High Court...." 109. Clause 15 makes no attempt to define what a judgment is. As letters patent is a special law which carves out its own sphere, it would not be possible for us to project the definition of the word "judgment" appearing in Section 2(9) of the Code of 1908, which defines "judgment" into the letters patent: ""Judgment" means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order." 110. In Mt. Shahzadi Begam, v. Alak Nath [AIR 1935 All 620 : 1935 ALJ 681 : 157 IC 347] , Sulaiman, C.J., very rightly pointed out that as the letters patent were drafted long before even the Code of 1882 was passed, the word "judgment" used in the letters patent cannot be relatable to or confined to the definition of "judgment" as contained in the