FAO(OS)/242/2012 of TOWER VISION LTD & ORS Vs SHIJU JACOB VARGHESE & ORS

$-10 & 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ FAO(OS) 242/2012 + FAO(OS) 243/2012

TOWER VISION LTD & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kumkum Sen, Mr. Prantik Hazarika and Mr. A. Ganguli and Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocates.

versus

SHIJU JACOB VARGHESE & ORS

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anil Airi with Mr. Navin Kumar, Ms. Rashmeet Kaur and Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

ORDER

30.05.2012

This intra Court appeal is directed against multiple orders as per the cause title, which reads as under: -

"Appeal filed under Order 41 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Rule 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against ad interim ex-parte stay order dated 20.01.2012 and subsequent interim orders dated 14.03.2012, 3.03.2012, 11.04.2012, 02.05.2012, 03.05.2012, 04.05.2012, 07.05.2012, 10.05.2012, 18.05.2012, 23.05.2012 and 24.05.2012 passed by the Hon 'ble Single Judge in the matter

Signature Not Verified

Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA

Ill

2. We may notice that the orders dated 23.05.2012 and 24.05.2012 have not been placed on record. On query, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant states that these orders are not available on the website and therefore have not been filed.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned single Judge has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 20.01.2012 in the suit filed by the respondent herein. The appellant has filed an application for vacation of stay under Order 39 Rule 4 and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which have remained pending since 14.03.2012.

4. Appearance has been made by the respondents who are the plaintiffs in the suit. Respondents submit that the applications have already been heard in part by the learned single Judge and arguments have been addressed on several dates. It is pointed out that the matter is now fixed for hearing before the learned single Judge on 05.07.2012. We notice that in the list of dates and events the appellants have accepted that the case was heard on 02.05.2012 and then on 03.05.2012, but the arguments could not be concluded. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 10.05.2012 at about 4:15 p.m. The case it is stated could not be taken up for hearing on 18.05.2012 and 23.05.2012.

4. Learned counsel who appears for the respondents states that the appellants are also responsible as they had filed additional documents on

5. It is apparent from the above that the applications have been taken up for hearing by the learned single Judge and question of vacation of stay and grant of stay is already pending consideration. The applications are now fixed for hearing on 05.07.2012. In these circumstances we do not think it will be appropriate for us to entertain these appeals. Of course, it is open to the appellants to pray and ask for early hearing and disposal of the application for vacation of stay and application under Order 7 Rule 11, etc. Learned counsel for the respondents states that they will fully cooperate and will not ask for adjournment.

6. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Kumkum Sen submits that the operative portion of order dated 20.01.2012 is somewhat ambiguous and is creating difficulty in day-to-day working/ operations. It is open to the appellants to ask for modification and clarification of the said order and also point out difficulties in day-to-day operation. If any such prayer is made, we hope the learned single Judge will deal with the contention expeditiously and as soon as possible.

7. Both the appeals are dismissed, with the aforesaid observations.

SANJIV KHANNA, J

MAY 30, 2012/hs

R.V.EASWAR, J