ARTI BHARGAVA Vs MADHUR BHARGAVA .
Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-003152-003153 / 2011
Diary number: 34246 / 2010
Advocates: ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs
RICHA KAPOOR
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