Prakash Khattar v. Shanta Jindal & Ors

ORDER %

01.11.2011 Caveat No.964/2011 Counsel as above appears for the caveators/respondents and hence the caveat is discharged. C.M.No.19601/2011 31 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.19600/2011 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶1Learned counsel for the appellant states that since evidence has been directed to be recorded and was being recorded and at that stage ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour appellant has been vacated, vide impugned order dated

04.07.2011, the appellant would not press the appeal if the Division Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Bench would nnake an observation and issue one direction.

¶2The observation sought from us is that notwithstanding conclusive and determinative words used by the learned Single Judge while deciding an interim application, it may be clarified that the same are just a prima-facie expression of an opinion by the learned Single Judge on the subject: Whether the appellant would be entitled to an interim injunction in that the final judgment would be with reference to the evidence led.

¶3Needless to state, the law is settled. Reflecting upon the facts at an interim stage, any expression of opinion by a Court, is always treated as a prima-facie opinion, for the reason the final opinion has to be expressed with reference to the evidence led and facts proved. Thus, we clarify that observations/opinions recorded in the impugned order dated 04.07.2011 shall be treated as a prima-facie reflection on the dispute by the learned Single Judge and that the final decision in the suit would be with reference to the evidence led.

¶4The direction which is sought is to conclude suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within months from today.

¶5Mr.Ved Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, points out that the evidence appellant/plaintiff has been closed and defendants have filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit with reference to Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, learned counsel simultaneously informs that the appellant/plaintiff has filed an application praying that the order closing appellant's/plaintiff's evidence be recalled and an opportunity be granted to lead evidence.

¶6Thus, disposing of the appeal by recording that the same has page 2 of3 a not been pressed, we express a request to the learned Single Judge that the two applications, one filed by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants, which have a bearing on the order closing evidence plaintiff be decided urgently preferably before the winter recess and if plaintiff is granted an opportunity to lead evidence, endeavor would be made to dispose of the suit preferably before the ensuing summer vacations of the year 2012. .7. The appeal stands disposed of as not pressed, with observation as above with further observation that if the subject ^ property is sold by the respondents pending disposal of the suit, v-v information thereof would be given to the learned Single Judge by filing an application containing disclosure of the particulars sale within a week of the sale being made and that the said sale would be subject to further orders which may be passed and no equities would be created in favour of the purchaser.

¶8No costs. C.M.No.19599/2011 Dismissed as not pressed. —It PRADEEP NANDRAJOGJ. r NOVEMBER 01, 2011 tr S.P.-GARG, J. page 3 of3

$-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + PRAKASH KHATTAR Appellant Through : Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Prakash Gautam, Advocate. versus (V SHANTA JINDAL & ORS Respondents Through : Mr.Ved Prakash Sharma, with Ms.Amrit K.Obroi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG