Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs Sudhir Kumar on 9 February, 2018

Bench: Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy

                                                       1

     ITEM NO.11                              COURT NO.10                    SECTION XIV

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)……………….Diary No(s).23761/2017

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-04-2017
     in SN No.09/2016 passed by the Additional District Judge-12,
     Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi)

     DINESH KUMAR SHARMA                                                    Petitioner(s)

                                                      VERSUS

     SUDHIR KUMAR & ORS.                                Respondent(s)
     (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing and refiling SLP, permission
     to argue and appear in person exemption from filing O.T.)

     Date : 09-02-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY


     For Petitioner(s)                In-person

     For Respondent(s)


                            UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                               O R D E R

1. Heard the petitioner-in-person.

2. Petitioner has submitted that he has come to this Court directly, as he has fought various litigations for the last 40 years and succeeded in them. Earlier adoption was found to be proved. The question was raised again in the Suit No.9/2016 (New No.:13850/2016), and negationed in the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge-12, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

3. He has further submitted that Respondent No.19 is Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2018.02.13 13:32:41 IST Reason: having a relative, who is highly influential and works in the Delhi High Court. That cannot be a ground to bypass the remedy of Regular First Appeal that lies against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Additional  2 District Judge-12, Central, Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi. We give thirty days’ time to the petitioner to file an appeal in the High Court.

4. In case appeal is filed, the same be treated in limitation. The Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to ensure that it is decided as early as possible.

5. With the above observations, the special leave petition and all pending applications stand disposed of.

     (Sarita Purohit)                                 (Jagdish Chander)
        Court master                                    Branch Officer