High Court Upholds Eviction Order: “A Second Appeal Only Lies on a Substantial Question of Law” – Delhi HC in Rajender Bhardwaj vs. Sulochana

145
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Fees Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on November 21, 2023, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, upheld the eviction of the appellant, Rajender Bhardwaj, from a disputed property. The court’s decision, in this case, reinforced the legal principle that a second appeal is contingent upon the presence of a substantial question of law.

The case, titled RSA NO. 216 OF 2023, involved an appeal against the judgments of the Additional District Judge and the Senior Civil Judge. These judgments had previously decreed the eviction of Bhardwaj and the recovery of arrears and user charges.

Justice Arora, in her verdict, emphasized the limited scope of second appeals in the civil judicial system, quoting the Supreme Court’s precedent in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamal and others (2020) 19 SCC 57, “A second appeal, or for that matter, any appeal is not a matter of right… A second appeal only lies on a substantial question of law.”

The case delved into the question of whether the appellant’s arguments presented any significant legal queries. The court found that the appellant’s contentions were primarily factual and did not raise substantial legal questions that warranted a second appeal. This aligns with the CPC’s restrictions on the right of second appeals to cases where a significant question of law is involved.

Moreover, the court acknowledged the appellant’s undertaking to vacate the disputed property by January 21, 2024, and granted an extension for this purpose. The appellant agreed to pay increased user charges in the event of non-compliance with the court’s orders.

Delhi High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of legal principles governing second appeals in civil litigation. The decision serves as a reminder that the scope of second appeals is not to re-agitate facts but to address substantial legal questions, ensuring the efficient and judicious use of judicial resources.

Date of Decision: 21st November 2023

RAJENDER BHARDWAJ VS SULOCHANA

Download Judgment

Share: