Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Hirawati vs Ayesha & Ors on 6 October, 2022

Author: C.Hari Shankar

Bench: C.Hari Shankar

                          $~43(Appellate)
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     CM(M) 856/2022
                                HIRAWATI                                   ..... Petitioner
                                                     Through: Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Akash
                                                     Sehrawat, Advs.

                                                     versus

                                AYESHA & ORS.                                     ..... Respondents
                                                     Through:      None
                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
                                                     ORDER

% 06.10.2022 CM APPL.43378/2022 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL.43377/2022 (for recalling of order dated 25th August 2022)

3. Ms. Maan submits, at the outset, that the present application had been filed as a review application but that the Registry objected to listing it as a review application and that it was at the instance of the Registry that it was refiled as a recall application.

4. If this is correct, it presents a curious picture.

5. It is for a litigant to decide whether to file an application as a review application or as a recall application. The Registry cannot direct a litigant to re-file a review application as a recall application.

The highest that the Registry may do in such circumstances is to enter an objection regarding the maintainability of the application which the Court would decide. No litigant can be compelled to file an application in the manner that the Registry desires.

6. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to ensure that, in future, applications preferred by litigants are listed in the form in which the litigant chooses to file the application. In case the Registry feels that the application is not maintainable in the form in which it is filed, it may raise an appropriate objection in that regard and it would be for the litigant concerned to rectify the objection. If the litigant is of the view that the application is maintainable, the litigant would have to satisfy the Registry accordingly failing which the matter would have to be put up subject to objections, whereafter, the Court would decide the issue of maintainability.

7. The learned Registrar General is directed to circulate this order to the Registry in order to ensure compliance.

8. The Court is, therefore, treating this application as a review application.

9. After some hearing, Ms. Maan submits that the only apprehension of her client is that, in the order dated 25th August 2022, impugned in CM(M) 856/2022, there are certain observations which may prejudice her client while arguing the suit (CS DJ 7240/16) finally. The observations, of this Court, in the order dated 25th August 2022, that no case for stay of the operation of the order dated 25th March 2022 is made out, she submits, might influence the learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 856/2022 Page 2 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.10.2022 16:51:43 ADJ in adopting such a view.

10. It is clarified that this Court, while passing the order dated 25th August 2022 rejected the prayer for stay only because the order dated 25th March 2022, under challenge, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of status quo in terms of the earlier order dated 18th March 2009, passed in the suit. The order dated 18th March 2009 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties. The prayer of the petitioner being, therefore, that status quo in respect of the suit properties be restored, this Court was -- and continues to be -- of the opinion that no case for staying proceedings in the suit could exist. It was for this reason that the prayer for stay was rejected.

11. Insofar as the apprehension expressed by Ms. Maan is concerned, it is well settled that observations and findings in interlocutory orders are not binding the Court at the stage of final hearing of the suit.

12. No further clarification is required in my opinion. The application is accordingly disposed of.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J OCTOBER 6, 2022/kr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 856/2022 Page 3 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.10.2022 16:51:43