OM PRAKASH vs THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY CMM 864/22 26/08/22 [ HARI JJ ]

[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

• Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 22(2) Suit for recovery of possession Adjournment of case Mere pendency of question before Division Bench or any higher forum is no justification for Trial Court adjourning case before it sine die Expeditious disposal of proceedings, especially before District Courts, has become pressing necessity in today’s day and age Arrears are clogging Courts and if matters are to be adjourned sine die merely because question of law involved therein is not guided by any earlier precedent and stands referred by higher forum to Division Bench or even to larger Bench of Supreme Court, it would become impossible for District Judiciary to decide matters before it Hence, writ petition dismissed.

Relevant Paras:

11. The impugned order dated 5th July 2022, passed by the learned Pr. DSJ also refers to the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Suvinys Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Verma Beauty Parlor and Hair Dressers6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has correctly held, in the said decision, that the mere pendency of the question before a Division Bench or any higher forum is no justification for the ld. Trial Court adjourning the case before it sine die.
12. Expeditious disposal of proceedings, especially before the learned District Courts, has become a pressing necessity in today’s day and age. Arrears are clogging the Courts and if matters are to be adjourned sine die merely because the question of law involved therein is not guided by any earlier precedent and stands referred by a higher forum to a Division Bench or even to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, it would become impossible for the District Judiciary to decide matters before it.

For read the judgment click here

Om Prakash vs THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.) judgment the law literates

all rights reserved (Vaibhav Tomar 𝔸𝕕𝕧)