JASWINDER SINGH Vs. MRIGENDRA PRITAM
LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-214
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 19,2012

JASWINDER SINGH,GEETANJALI SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
MRIGENDRA PRITAM,MRIGENDRA PRITAM VIKRAMSINGH STEINER Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ASWINI KUMAR GHOSH VS. ARABINDA BOSE [REFERRED TO]
C.S. AGARWAL AND ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A.S. DHUPIA [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR ENGINEERING CO. VS. JAWAHAR [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LIMITED VS. GOKAL CHAND [REFERRED TO]
SHAH BABULAL KHIMJI VS. JAYABEN D KANIA [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL KISHORE PALIWAL VS. S SAT JIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS. HAFIZ MOHAMMAD SAID [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC TRUSTEE VS. RAJESHWAR TYAGI [REFERRED TO]
SHANTA SABHARWAL VS. SUSHILA SABHARWAL [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAMID VS. CHARANJIT MEHRA [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL EXPORTS LIMITED VS. FUERST DAY LAWSON LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
R K SHARMA VS. ASHOK NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
SAHIL SINGH MANIKTALA VS. HARPREET SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CROCODILE INT PTE LTD VS. LACOSTE S A [REFERRED TO]
JYOTIKA KUMAR VS. ANIL SONI [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL EXPORTS LTD VS. FUERST DAY LAWSON FDL HEAD OFFICE UNITED KINGDOM [REFERRED TO]
MAGOTTEAUX INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD VS. AIA ENGINEERING LTD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

URMIL WADHAWAN VS. SONNY SARNA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-2-130] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR MALHOTRA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2024-2-144] [REFERRED TO]
VLS FINANCE LTD. VS. SOUTHEND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-424] [REFERRED TO]
IN MATTER OF: NATASHA KOHLI VS. KUM KUM TALWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
VLS FINANCE LTD VS. SOUTHEND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-217] [REFERRED TO]
HANS U NAGAR VS. JOHN NAGAR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-152] [REFERRED TO]
S. P. RANA VS. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAT RAM ALAGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2024-1-209] [REFERRED TO]
ALEX JEWELLERY PVT LTD VS. ROLEX SA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-207] [REFERRED TO]
DURO FLEX PVT. LIMITED VS. DUROFLEX SITTINGS SYSTEM 150 [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-225] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR BROTHERS VS. LIFE ESSENTIALS PERSONAL CARE (P) LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2020-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
DR.HANS U. NAGAR VS. JOHN NAGAR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION USA VS. ASHOK CHAUHAN & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-276] [REFERRED TO]
SCB CHINA LTD VS. STATE BANK OF PATIALA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-186] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The interplay of the jurisdictions to be exercised under Letters Patent and as the First Appellate Court while dealing with non-appealable orders passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction has given rise to the present reference. The question, thus, which arises for consideration is:
"If an order is passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction which is not appealable under Section 104 (1) read with Order 43 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Code") whether the remedy would be under Section 10 (1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") or under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent ?"

(2.)The occasion to make this reference arose on account of the fact that at various times pronouncements of this Court have treated it as an "either" or "or" situation while entertaining an appeal, i. e. , an appeal would be maintainable from a non-appealable order provided it satisfies certain tests and such an appeal may arise under one or the other of the aforesaid provisions and, thus, the matter was never examined further. A Division Bench of this Court posed this question and subsequently analyzed it while making the reference vide order dated 17.4.2012 so that the controversy could be put at rest and a consistent practice is followed. This also became necessary in a sense for assisting in, both, the administration of justice and court management as the Chief Justice of the High Court is the Master of the Roster and as per allocation of roster, normally, the letters patent jurisdiction is exercised by a different Bench than the Bench exercising jurisdiction under First Appealable Orders from Original Side [FAO (OS)].
(3.)The Delhi High Court was constituted under the said Act. It being one of the newer High Courts, it had the benefit of being constituted under a legislation of the Indian Parliament. In terms of Section 5 (1) of the said Act, the Delhi High Court has been conferred with all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction, as under the law in force immediately before being exercised in respect of the territories by the High Court of Punjab. However, the Punjab High Court did not have any ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Therefore, Section 5 (2) of the said Act which begins with a non obstante clause conferred an additional ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeded Rs. 25,000.00, on the Delhi High Court. This limit has been subsequently revised and stands at Rs. 20.00 lakh now. Section 5 of the said Act reads as under:
"5. Jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi-(1) The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union territory of Delhi, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of the territories by the High Court of Punjab.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds rupees twenty lakhs. ?



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.