AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mukul Mudgal, J.—After hearing the counsel for the parties at length, we have taken note of the fact that the counsel have agreed to the disposal of both these appeals by consent. Appellant Shri Gulshan Kumar is also present in the Court and his consent has also been obtained by Mr. Vidhani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
Insofar as the R.F.A.(OS) No. 44 of 2009 is concerned, the impugned order dated 13th April, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 382 of 2008 dismissing the said suit is set aside and the suit CS(OS) No. 382 of 2008 is restored to its original number on the file.
However, we make it clear that it will be open to the parties to urge the issue of genuineness of the documents before the learned Single Judge when the matter is taken up. The costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge are also waived.
So far as the appeal being F.A.O.(OS) No. 190 of 2009 preferred against the impugned order dated 13th April, 2009 in LA. Nos. 7344 and 9687 of 2007 in CS(OS) No. 1192 of 2007 is concerned, it is ordered that the appeal against the order in LA. No. 7344 of 2007 is dismissed and the appeal against the order in LA. No. 9687 of 2007 is also dismissed but the costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge stand waived.
Accordingly, both these appeals stand disposed of. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
Mr. Vidhani, learned Counsel for the appellant prays that the suit be disposed of expeditiously. It shall be open to him to raise such plea before the learned Single Judge.