A
AMITA KAUSHISH AND ORS.
v.
SANJA Y KAUSHISH AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 16, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Art. 136-Special leave jwisdiction-Direction of Division Bench of
C High Cowt for listing a matte1~Not disposed of-High Cowt requested to fix
early date before end of the yea1~Seeking approp1iate interlocutory
relief '--Not precluded by stay of tlial of the suit.
D
E
This appeal is against the High Court's (Division Bench) direction
to list the matter on a particular day for final hearing.
Disposing of the matter, this Court
HELD : 1. Since the time fixed by the High Court is already over and
the appeal is yet to be disposed of, the High Court is requested to
appropriately fix an early date for disposal, preferably before the end of
this year. [443-B]
2. The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents
to seek such appropriate interlocutory relief as may be available and
warranted in the facts and circumstances. [443-C]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11192 of
1995.
r
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.94 of the Delhi High Court
in F.A.O. (OS) No. 221 of 1991.
G
Rishi Kesh for the Appellants.
Amit Chadha and Ms. Indra Sawhney for the Respondent No. 1.
Kapil Sibal and K. J. John, for the Respondent No. 2.
H
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
442
A KAUSHISH v. S.KAUSHISH
443
Leave granted.
A
The impugned order is only a direction to list the appeal F AO (OS)
No. 221/91 filed by the appellants for disposal pending in the High Court.
The Division Bench by its order dated July 12, 1994 directed to list the
appeal for final hearing on October 17, 1994 within first five cases. It would
appear that there is long drawn litigation in,ter se parties. Since the time B
fixed by the High Court is already over and the appeal is yet to be disposed
of, we request the High Court to appropriately fix an early date for
disposal, preferably before the end of this year.
The learned counsel for the respondents stated that on account of
the stay of the suit, his clients are prevented to take any direction or order C
by way of interlocutory application. The stay of the trial of the suit does
not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory reliefs
as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
D
G.N.
Appeal Disposed of.
Lex