,Scclion rrncie t. u,lr iclr lhcr allpealErractrnerrt arrcl
Bar & Bench (barandbench.com)
.\|,|f Y
t,
IN THN HIGH COTIRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rAo(os) No.* o!- z0t7'.'.
IN THII MATTIR OF:
Arvincl I(ejriwal .,.Appellant
Versus
Mr. Arun.Initley&Ors ... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL UI\DBR SBCTION 10. OF DELHI HIGHCOURT /.CT AGAI]\ST ORDER OF THB LBARNBD SINGLD
.IIJDGB DATED 26,07,2017 PASSBD IN VIOLATION OF THEOIUGINAL SIDE RULIS AND BNTBRTAINING ANAPPLICA'TION WHICH WAS TBGALLY UNTBNABLE AND
LIMITING TI-ID APPDARAI\CB OF ONLY THB ADVOCATESWHO ARIO APPEARING IN THE PRBSENT CASE IN THECOURT ROOM FOR WHICH THERB WAS NO PRAYER OFTHB APPI,ICANTS.
The a;ppeilants/defendants most respectfulry submit and pontend
as forth:
l. That thp RespondentNo. 1 fired a suit c.s. (o.s ,) 34s7 of 20r5againsr: the appeilant ancl five otrrers crairni'g darnages to thetune of Rs. l0 cr.ores for alleged clEfamation of
Bar & Bench (barandbench.com)
2,
cltaractgr,Appellant fiied a Cletail writterr statement in r,espsnse te
the allegation in the plaint, Qontents 0f the $ame be read as part of
this application ancl has not been reproduced here for the sake of
brevity,
That during cross examination of thg Respondent No, 1 bpfore
tlre .loint Registrar on 06.03 ,2017 amongst others, 5? questions,
we)re put to the RespondEnt No. l.Thp Joint Registrar dipallqwed
10 of these questions. on 17.05 .?QrT of the 7 qugstion$ put ta
thE: Respondent No. i by the spniqr Counsel rgprqsenting the
cleiendant Nq.1 the Joint Registrar disallowed 5 of these
questions
That the Responclerrt No. I filecl a'I.A. 6955 of ?017 uA i5lc.P.c' The said LA. was, as per o,s,Rules, putrup befbrp the
Joint Registrar on 29.05 ,2017. on that date only Deferrdant No.5
appeared before the Joint Registrar.The Joint Registrar fixed the
ne>it date as 1410712017 and issued notices to other Defendantsin
the above mentioned suit The defenclants appeared before the
Joint Registrar on 14,07,2017 and sought time to file :reply,
horvever the learned counser for the plaintiff opposed the said
request and stated that two days ago, he mentioned the matter,
beflcre the Hon'ble Judge In-Charge (original Side) regarding thp
prerient application and he was requested by the Hontble Judge
i'-c:harge to rnake a requqst to the reamed Joint Registrar tq plaqe
the iiresent appligation before tlre Llon'ble Court; The counsel
3.
Bar & Bench (barandbench.com)
,+
{br the defendant :subrnitted that he is not awarQ, of any such. ..
merntioning, l'he Joint Registrar directed that in the given
cir<;timstances the saicl apptication be placecl before the l-lon'trle
Ccl',rrt fbr firrther clirerctions or'r l8-07-20l7,This orcJgr was passed
by the .ioint registrar in gross violation of O,S. Rules specifically
rr"rlrl 3A.'l'hq rlrder of tlre .foint Registrar is being annexed as
"Anncxurc Al" to this Appeal,
'.1-hl appellant is placing belore this. I-[on'blc Court the
application (l,A .695512017) as .,\nnexure A2 and tlre reply filed
by del'enditrit no,l/appellant to the said applipation as'Annexure
A3, 'l'he contents of the saicl application ",Annexure A?" and tlie
reprly "Annexure A3" nray please be consid.ered"as an integral
part of'this Appeal,
5. On | 8,07.201 7 the clel'endants appeafed befor:e the High Cqpr.l
4,
l'-I
(.lrldge lir-charge (O S)) and sor,rght time to:
da'ys' time was granted and the case was
?4,07,2017,
file their reply. Three
fixed for hearing
In tlre nrean rvliile learned Senior Cor.rnsel wlro was recently
errgaged to appeal'on behalf'of'the ilef'endant no.l rnentioned theI
rrra,ttcr on 2l .07,201 7 ancl ar his request the learnecl Single judge
was pleased to list the rnatler on 26.07,2017. Qn 26.07.2017
arg;uments were heard, 'l'he Hon'ble Court while overrqling the
ar'gSurnents advanced rin belrali of def'endant no.l that such an
applicatiorr (1,A. 69.55/2017) is rrot niaintairrable uncler the rules
oll
Bar & Bench (barandbench.com)
\F
the learned single .ludge passed tlre inrpugnecl order en
2(i.07 ,2017 and direcred thar rhp trial be expedired. The order
dated 26,0,1 .2017 is attached as Annexure A-4.
'l'he inrpugrred order of'the learned single irrclge is liable to be set
asicle on the following arnorrgst other grouncls.
qfiau$ ' l
'l'lrc learncd singlc.Ir.rdge lras grievously err.ecl in law in
entertainirrg LA, 6955/ 20l7.since tlre apprication of this narure is
rrct envisaged and thus unsilstainable urrcrer the Delhi Fligh courl
Oliginal Side ltules,
I3. -l"he learrred Single .ludge has grievously erred irr not considering
tlrr: ir,po'r of- Ilulc i (A) ol'the O,S, Rurles, which reads as
u ncler':-
l-(4)."//l application excepl lhose in which urgent ex pctrte ordgrs are
,soi'tghl v,ill be placed be.lbre the Registrar in the first instenQQ':
He'will clispose of such rtf thent as he is entpowered to do, and as
regards the re,rt may call.[or replies and rejoinders and take suph
olher steps as are necessary to make them ready .for hearing,t /' ,' ..bqfore li,sting them be.fore the Court."-f'he lea'necl single Jurclge orrght to rrave appr.eciatecl that the
application placecl bel'orc tlre .loinr Registr.ar uncler Rule 3(A) has
to )e proccccleci witlr irr accorcjarrce witlr tlre o.S. Rules, arrcl the
lea'rrecl single .lurclge co'lci not lrave orally directed the Iea'red
Bar & Bench (barandbench.com)
)^ llssnior cor.r'sel appearing fbr the plaintiff to req\rest the Joint
Registrar to rqfer I.A 6955/2017 to itself and that too, bghind the
back of the defendants,
C. That the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that no order
wias passect by the Joint Registrar which coulcl have entaileci an
Appeal by an aggrieved party undqr Ruls 4 of the O.$. Rules.
The learned single Judge has pmed grievously in law in holding., "
th*t the Joint Rggistrar is r:egording evidgnce : undgr the
sttpelvislon of this Court, and if a p4rty is subjeoted to abusg or
hurniliation cluring the process of Qros$-pxamination, the Court
carr surely inrervene. I' holciirig thus, the lear.ned singrp Juclge
har; failed to appreciate that thg power to reqord eviclgnce is to bp
Qxt:rcised u'c{er the o.S. Rrrles by the Joint Registrar uncler
clause (29) of Rule J.The rearnecl Single Judge ,also failed to
appreciate tliat under Qlause ?9 of Rule 3 of O.S. Rules, powel.
has been conferrecl o' the Joint Registrar.to decide objections as
to questions in cross examination. The concemed clause is being
reproducecl below for ready reference:-
Cla use 29 frf Ryles 3:
"To secure that attendance oi witnesses and take proqeed.ings
against them,fctr failure to contply with the summo)ns as provided
under )rder wr of the code and to record evidence and decide
Bar & Bench (barandbench.com)
k
D.
a,bjectiow as tct guestions in
examination and re-exarnin ation;,'
examination-in-chief, cross-
ll'he learned Single Judge has thus failed tq appr:eqiate that any
i'terfbre'ce i' o'going reco'cring of svidence is a vioration ofct.s. Rule 3. The learned single jrrdge furtrrer faired to appreciate
that the Joint ltegistrar is a clelegate of the High Courl not pf any
irrdividual judge,
That rhe learned $ingle Judgeifailed to appreciate
oli cro$s.gxamination is provided uncler the Indian
that the sogpe
Fvidence Apt.
E.
The Joint Registrar hacr arready while exer"cising the power
ccnferred on him, clisallowed certain
which had beEn put to thq plaintiff anql
cause for the leamed Singlg Juctge to exercise its power in thE
mannpr in wlrich it has
CI,C.
been exgrqisgd, astqnsit2ty under u/$ l$l
That the learned single.iudge failed to appreciate that it is settled
Iavr that sectio'r51 of the cocle of civir procedure can not be
invoked against provisions of raw or rures. The singre judge also
failed to appreciate that if law requires a particular thing has.toclone i'a particurar'ranner then it has to done in that manner ornot all.
The leanred singre Judge has arso erred in directing the JointRegistrar to allow o'ry the Advocates who are appearing in thepresent case to be present i' the court Room, This besides being
Que$trqns qn 1'7.05.?QtT,
thus there was ne ftiither
F.
Bar & Bench (barandbench.com)
th,
t3against the principles of opell apurts aauses gr.eat inconvenienceto counsels, their associates, $qnior Counsels, and theirassociates, general public etc, Morgover, such a ,elief was alsonot claimeci in rhe application i.e. I.A. 6955 IZQI7.
fhat the lea*ed singre Judge has arso failed,to appreciate theirnporl of Rure 4 of the o.S. Rures. The Singre Judge ougrrt teha'u'e appreciated that remedy under Rure4 is againstlun ord., ofthe Joint Registrar, No order of the Joint Registrar was irnpugnedin I'A 6g's512017, Thus such an uppti.ution was not pen,iroo,,under the O,S, Rules and coulcl not have been entertained by the:lear'ed single Jucrge,The errterraining of I.A, 6955 12017 by theIearned Single iudge is without jurisdiction and trre irnpu*nrd'orcler is therefore a nullitv.
H' That the leamed singre Jucrge ought to have granted ,at least Zmont'h's tine to prepare as requested by the learned sEni,orcounser appearing for Defendant No, 1. since there are armost 5thousiurd pages of documents onrecord of the suit.
The inrpugned order deserves to be set aside as it has been passedwholll'without jurisdiction and,is a nullity. : ,,
l
qBAYBThat in the facts and circumstances as statqcr above it is prayed &at thisHon'blp Court be pleased to;
G.
i. t
I
I
Bar & Bench (barandbench.com)
"rrt t+a)' $Et aside the irnpugned order of the learned Single Jgdge dated
26,07,2017:
b). Pass suqh order/ordprs that thig l-{es'ble Csuft may deern fit and
prop9r.
THROUGH
' ADVQCATE$D-26, SOUTH $XTENSION PART II; NEW DEIIHI il004g
