Arti Bhargava & Anr vs Madhur Bhargava & Ors

ARTI BHARGAVA & ANR. .......APPELLANTS

Versus

MADHUR BHARGAVA & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard.

2. The respondents filed a suit against the

appellants in the year 2000 for recovery of possession of

the suit premises and mesne profits. The said suit was

decreed on 23.8.2003 in so far as the prayer for

possession. The prayer for mesne profits was rejected.

3. Four appeals were filed against the said

judgment and decree. RFA No.732/2003 was filed by the

respondents. RFA No.855/2003 was filed by the appellants.

RFA Nos. 878/2003 and 912/2003 were filed by the tenants of

the suit premises.

4. The High Court Rules (as they earlier stood

before the amendment by notification dated 23.12.2008)

2

provided that Regular first appeals should be heard by a

division bench of two Judges. In view of it, the appeals

filed by the appellants and respondents were heard in part

by a division bench, prior to 23.12.2008. The hearing of the

other two appeals was not commenced.

5. The Delhi High Court Rules were amended by

notification dated 23.12.2008 and it was provided that all

regular first appeals, irrespective of the value of the

subject matter, will be heard by a single Judge. The

amendment to the Rules, however, made it clear that the

amended rules shall apply to pending appeals other than

those in which regular hearing has actually commenced

before the coming into force of the amendment to the Rules.

6. When the appeals came up before the Division

Bench of the High Court on 30.1.2009, the division bench

noted that all four appeals were interconnected, arising

out of the same suit. The division bench directed that RFA

Nos.878/2003 and 912/2003 in which hearing had not

commenced, to be listed before a single Judge. As RFA Nos.

732/2003 and 855/2003 had been substantially heard, they

were retained on the file of the division bench for

completing the hearing and disposal.

7. On 20.3.2009, the Division Bench, however,

directed that RFAs Nos.732/2003 and 855/2003 should be

3

released from `part heard' category and placed before a

learned single Judge, on the ground that notes of arguments

of the Division Bench were misplaced and the matters will

have to be heard afresh.

8. When the matters thereafter came up before

the learned single Judge, the appellants filed an

application that the appeals will have to be heard by

Division Bench. The learned single Judge on 5.5.2010,

rejected the application on the ground that remedy of the

appellants lied elsewhere. Thereafter, the appellants have

filed this appeal by special leave, challenging the orders

dated 30.1.2009 and 20.3.2009.

9. The amended rules make it clear that the

rules as amended will apply only to appeals where hearing

has not commenced. The amended Rules also provide that

appeals where hearing has already commenced, will be

governed by the rules that were in force before the

amendment. In other words, if the appeals have been heard

in part before 23.12.2008, hearing of such appeals will

have to be completed and decided by the division bench.

10. The fact that the division bench has lost its notes

of arguments is not a ground for relegating the parties for

hearing of the appeals before a learned single Judge as

that would be contrary to rules. What is material is the

4

hearing in part by the division bench and not the notes.

Therefore RFAs. 732 and 855 of 2003 will have to be heard

by the division bench.

11. Insofar as RFA Nos.878 and 912 of 2003 are

concerned, even though the hearing in these appeals had not

commenced, as they are also against the same judgment

dated 23.8.2003, interest of justice would require that

they should also be heard alongwith RFA Nos.732 and

855/2003 and decided by a common judgment, to avoid

divergent and conflicting decisions.

12. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the

order of the Division Bench dated 20.3.2009 as also that

part of the order dated 30.1.2009 directing that RFA No.878

and 912/2003 be heard by a single Judge. We request the

Division Bench to hear the four appeals together and

dispose them expeditiously.

......................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; ......................J. April 08, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )