REENA SADH versus ANJANA ENTERPRISES

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1165 · Decided: 04-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1165 
REENA SADH 
A 
v. 
ANJANA ENTERPRISES 
(Civil Appeal No. 2472 of 2008) 
APRIL 4, 2008 
B 
+ 
[S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Delhi High Court Rules -
Rule 6 Chapter 13 -
Compliance with - Transfer of recovery suit from High Court 
to subordinate court on enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction c 
- Absence of notice of transfer of suit to defendant no 3 - Ex 
parte decree - Application ulo. 9 r 13 - Dismissed by courts 
below - Held: Not correct - In absence of notice courts below 
not justified in passing ex parte decree :... Strict compliance of 
Rule 6 Chapter 13 was required - Registrar of Delhi High D 
Court and court presiding-Additional District Judge were duty 
bound to see that decree was passed only after proper service 
- Defendant no. 3 being party before Delhi High Court, was 
bound to be given notice of transfer - It cannot be said that 
defendant no. 3 not being interested party was not to be E 
informed - 9ounsel who appeared did not appear for all 
defendants - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 9 r 13. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal was whether in absence of notice to the 
defendant of transfer of recovery suit in terms of the Rule 
F 
6 Chapter 13 of the Delhi High Court Rules, from Delhi 
High Court to the court of District Judge, on enhancement 
of the pecuniary jurisdiction, the courts below were 
justified in dismissing the application under 0. 9 r 13 CPC 
for setting aside the ex parte decree in recovery suit. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
'>· 
HELD: 1. The language of the Rule 6 Chapter 13 of 
the Delhi High Court Rules provides that the Presiding 
1165 
H 
1166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A Officer of the Court from where the matter was transferred · 
(in this case the Delhi High Court) was responsible for 
informing the parties regarding the transfer as also the 
date on which the parties were supposed to be present 
before the court to which the case was transferred (District 
8 Judge in this case). From the very language of the Rule 6, 
Chapter 13, the Rule has to be held as mandatory Rule 
1 
and indeed in the absence of such Rule, the concerned 
parties would have no notice of the transfer of the case 
nor of the proceedings in such a transferred case. 
c Therefore, the Rule has to be held requiring the strict 
compliance of the same. [Paras 12 and 13] [1175-B-C, H; 
1176-A] 
2.1 In the instant case, the matter was transferred by 
order of Joint Registrar dated 08.03.2003. This being an 
D administrative order, passed by the Joint Registrar, it was 
incumbent on the part of the High Court to let all the parties 
know about the date on which they should appear before 
the District Judge. In this order the Registrar recorded the 
date on which the parties should appear before the 
E District Judge, Delhi. However, it is obvious that it was 
only Shri Ajay Amitabh Suman who was appearing for the 
defendants. There is no reference whatsoever in the 
above order that Shri Ajay Amitabh Suman was appearing 
for 'all' the defendants. [Para 11] [1174-D-E, G-H; 1175-A-B] 
F 
2.2 Rule 6 was not complied with in case of the 
present appellant who was the original defendant no.3. It 
is obvious that the Joint Registrar proceeded under the 
impression that Shri Ajay Amitabh Suman was appearing 
for all the defendants. The Courts below observed that 
G on this date the appellant was not appearing before the 
court at all though she was served way back in 2001. 
However, it is nobody's case and indeed the records do 
not show that she was proceeded ex-parte by the High 
Court. Therefore, she was certainly in the array of parties 
H on 8.8.2003 and the Rule thus applied to her with full force. 
-~ 
REENA SADH v. ANJANA ENTERPRISES 
1167 
Therefore, it cannot be said that the word "parties" used A 
in the Rule did not include her who was original defendant 
No.3. The courts below have obviously committed an 
error in treating that the appellant not being an interested 
party was not required to be informed of the transfer of 
the case as also the date on which the parties were B 
expe~ted to appear before the court to which the case 
was transferred. It is to be seen that in the language of 
the Rule the word used is "parties" and not "interested 
parties". If the interpretation put forth by the courts below 
is accepted, the word "interested" would have to be read c 
in the Rule which is not permissible. [Para 12] [1175-C-G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.