IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3152-3153 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.35503-35504 of 2010]

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)  

1

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  

2

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  

3

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 )

4