Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CA 87/2023
NEHA RAJAN RAO AND ORS. Vs. RAJAN RAO ALIAS
RANJAN YADAV
03.05.2023
Present: Sh. Himanshu Yadav, Ld. Counsel for appellant.
Sh. Prerak Khurana and Ms. Shefali Munde, Ld.
Counsels for respondent.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant has been put as to how his
appeal is maintainable considering that the order dated 19.04.2023
reserves the application for orders after hearing arguments of the
parties.
The only grievance of the appellant seems to be that
instead of passing the order immediately, the Court listed the matter
for 17.05.2023.
Hearing of arguments and pronouncement of orders are
two different functions performed by a Court and it is best left to the
discretion of the Court as to when the Court is ready to pass orders
on an application after hearing arguments.
Regard would also have to be made to the total
pendency of work in a particular Court and other cases pending
pronouncement for orders. This aspect, therefore, one cannot be
gone into by an appellate Court nor can a party insist that the order
be pronounced on a particular day.
Secondly, the order reserving the application for
pronouncement of order after hearing arguments is a mere
procedural order and Ld. Counsel, therefore, is required to show how
such an order is appealable under the provisions of Section 29 of DV
Act.
(Contd/-…..2)
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Ld. Counsel submits that matter may be adjourned as he
is not prepared to address arguments on the aspect of maintainability
which is being raised today by the Court. He however submits that
the matter be adjourned for tomorrow.
The counsel/parties cannot dictate when and how the
court should hear the matter more specifically when this matter was
kept pending since morning and called several times today at request
of parties and is now being taken at 03:30 PM once again during the
day. The Court has to see its cause-list while adjourning the matter.
Therefore, list the matter on 12.05.2023.
Written submissions may be filed on the said aspect by
both the parties on the said date with advance copy to the other side.
It has additionally been put to the counsel as to when
view of the Trial Court is not even available before this Court, how
the appellant proposes that the Court should substitute its own view
deciding the matter on appeal.
(Harjyot Singh Bhalla)
ASJ-04/NDD/PHC/ND
03.05.2023
-- 2 of 2 --