Mrs. Saraswati Devi Through Professor Ram Prakash and Others vs Sobhagya Advertising Service and Another

Mr. Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—This appeal, filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, impugns the judgment dated 4th October, 2012 of the

learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of FAO 341/2012 preferred by the appellants. The said appeal was preferred against the order

dated 26th July, 2012 of the learned Addl. District Judge of dismissal with costs of Rs. 10,000/- of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of

the CPC filed by the appellants in a suit, also filed by the appellants and pending adjudication before the Addl. District Judge. The Registry has

listed this appeal subject to objection as to maintainability. We have heard the appellant Professor Ram Prakash on the aspect of maintainability of

this Letters Patent Appeal. Section 100A of the CPC, as subject matter of discussion in Avtar Narain Behal Vs. Subhash Chander Behal, & N.G.

Nanda and Others Vs. Shri Gurbax Singh and Others, , bars further appeal including under the Letters Patent from an appellate order of a Single

Judge of the High Court. A Full Bench of this Court in judgment dated 19th October, 2012 in FAO(OS) NO. 684/2010 titled Jaswinder Singh

Vs. Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner has also discussed the scope of the Letters Patent Appeal and appeals u/s 10 of the Delhi High Court

Act, 1966.

Professor Ram Prakash relies on the judgment of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd. and Another, ,

However the same does not consider Section 100A supra.

After some argument, Professor Ram Prakash states that he would be satisfied if costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the learned Addl. District

Judge be waived. Reliance in this regard is placed on Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, . He has also explained that the costs are unjustified

inasmuch it is the appellants who are interested in early disposal of the proceedings and it is the respondents who have been delaying the same.

Without holding the appeal to be maintainable, we are unable to interfere even with the part of the order imposing the costs. All that can be

observed is that the appellants may make an application before the learned Addl. District Judge before whom the suit is pending, for waiver/re-

consideration of the costs and we are confident that the learned Addl. District Judge would deal with the same fairly and equitably. The appeal is

dismissed as not maintainable save for the aforesaid observations.

No costs.