Chairman, Delhi Development Authority & ORS v. Satya Narain (Deceased) Thr Lrs & ANR

$~18 & 19 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ TR.P.(C.) 49/2019 & CM No. 17790/2019 CHAIRMAN, DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel for DDA with Ms Nazia Parveen, Advocate.

versus SATYA NARAIN (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr Ramakant Sahu, R-1A in person.

Mr Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr Sarvan Kumar Shukla, Advocates for R-2.

AND 19.

+ TR.P.(C.) 52/2019 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel for DDA with Ms Nazia Parveen, Advocate.

versus SATYA NARAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THR HIS LRS & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr Ramakant Sahu, R-1A in person.

Mr Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr Sarvan Kumar Shukla, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 07.05.2019 1.

The petitioner (Delhi Development Authority) has filed the present petitions under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, praying that the appeals (MCA No.01/2019 and RCA No.03/2019) preferred by the petitioner be transferred to this Court. 2.

The said appeals were preferred against the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Central) Tis Hazari in two separate matters;

namely, M.No.60661/2016 and Suit No.94582/2016 both captioned 'Satya Narain v. DDA & Ors.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the appellate court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals since the suit property is located within the jurisdiction of Courts at Saket. The aforesaid contention is not persuasive. An appeal against an order passed by any court would lie to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of that court. In the present case, it is not disputed that the learned ADJ hearing the appeals is the designated court for hearing appeals against orders and judgements by Civil Judge (Central).

4.

It is relevant to note that any objection to territorial jurisdiction has to be taken in the first instance as mandated in Section 21 of the CPC. The petitions are unmerited and are, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 07, 2019/ MK