Delhi High Court - Orders
Shri Kazi Bashir Rahaman Proprietor Of ... vs Shri Raminder Singh Proprietor Of M/S ... on 22 March, 2023
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 468/2023
SHRI KAZI BASHIR RAHAMAN PROPRIETOR OF M/S STAR
HAWAI CENTRE ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ritika Mitra, Adv.
versus
SHRI RAMINDER SINGH PROPRIETOR
OF M/S J.K POLYMERS ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 22.03.2023 [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ] CM APPL. 13997/2023 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 468/2023 & CM APPL. 13996/2023 (Stay)
3. The challenge in the present petition is composite in that the challenge to the order dated 24.11.2022 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the challenge in the present petition would be restricted only to the order dated 24.11.2022 in respect of allowing of the application under order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of the respondent.
5. The petitioner challenges the order dated 24.11.2022 in CS SCJ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 468/2023 1 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:29.03.2023 13:44:56 No.438/2021 titled "M/s. J. K. Ploymers Vs. M/s. Star Hwai"
whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 along with amended plaint filed on behalf of respondent/plaintiff was allowed.
6. Learned counsel also challenges the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby an application under Section 151 CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of petitioner seeking dismissal of the suit for not having paid the costs of Rs.2,000/-, which was conditional for allowing the amendment, was dismissed.
7. Ms. Mitra learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 was filed on 24.11.2022, considered and decided on the same day without affording an opportunity to the petitioner/respondent to file its reply taking objections in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court did not give any opportunity to file the reply to the said application, thereby curtailing the valuable and indelible rights of the petitioner and causing prejudice to the petitioner.
8. Issue notice. Upon the petitioner taking steps within one week, let notice be issued to the respondent through all permissible modes. Additionally, through learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court.
9. Insofar as the challenge to the dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 is concerned, the same is not maintainable before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 468/2023 2 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:29.03.2023 13:44:56 same in appropriate proceedings.
10. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
11. In the meanwhile, learned Trial Court is requested to defer the proceedings stated to be listed on 19.04.2023 to a date beyond the date fixed by this Court.
12. List on 14.08.2023.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 22, 2023/ms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 468/2023 3 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:29.03.2023 13:44:56