Dev Raj & Ors v. Satpal Gulia

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 'pp'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 14th September, 2018. + DEV RAJ & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Jawahar Chawla and Ms. S. Chawla, Advs. Versus SATPAL GULIA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.37510/2018 (for exemption). 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. RSA No.132/2018. 3. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 16th May, 2018 in RCA No.60955/2016 of the Court of Additional District-11 (Central)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the four appellants against the judgment and decree [dated 24th December, 1999 in Suit No.579/96 of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi] of dismissal of suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant "from closing the doors of the house of the plaintiffs bearing no.223, Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi, which opens in the back portion of their houses in the interest of justice". 4. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has been heard to decipher whether this Second Appeal raises any substantial question of law inasmuch as, as per dicta of the Supreme Court in Surat Singh Vs. Siri Bhagwan (2018) 4 SCC 562, before entertaining a Second Appeal and issuing notice thereof, substantial question of law has to be framed. 5. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, on being asked the substantial question of law which this appeal entails, has raised two contentions. Firstly it is contended that this Court, vide order dated 21st February, 2018 in CM(M) No.423/2017 titled Satpal Gulia Vs. Dev Raj arising from the First Appeal in the subject case had directed the First Appellate Court to first decide the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC before hearing the arguments in the First Appeal. It is contended that the First Appellate Court has decided the appeal in violation of the mandate of this Court. 6. Though I am unable to see as to how this contention, without urging as to what illegality has been committed thereby, raises a substantial question of law but to deal with the same, it is deemed appropriate to set out hereinbelow the order dated 21st February, 2018 supra:- "The civil suit (later registered as Suit No.579/1996) was instituted by the respondents on 06.09.1993 praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner, who was impleaded as the defendant. The suit was dismissed by the civil Judge by judgment dated 24.12.1999. The respondents (the plaintiffs) brought an appeal against the said judgment which was initially filed before senior civil Judge on 10.02.2000, but later transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), it presently being registered as RC ADJ 60955/2016. The appellants had submitted an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on 11.10.2010. It is clear from the copies of the proceedings recorded in its wake that there are directions for the said application to be considered at the time of final arguments on the main appeal. The appeal and the said application have not seen adjudication till date, even though they have been now pending for over eighteen years. The petitioner (the respondent in appeal) is aggrieved because there is an interim order operating adverse to his interest, his grievance being that the proceedings are being protracted to avail undue benefit of said interim order. The respondents had taken notice through counsel on 19.04.2017. The matter has come up for hearing but there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the copies of proceedings recorded on the file of the appeal since inception, this Court finds absolutely no justification for such protracted proceedings and inordinate delay. The