(Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
Atul Kumar Singh __________________________________ Appellant
v.
Nitish Kumar and Ors. ___________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6097 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11364 of 2018], decided on July 6, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned order dated 03.04.2018, an interlocutory order has been passed by High Court of Delhi by which the High Court purports to interfere with the order passed by the Joint Registrar dated 02.08.2017, by which an application to delete respondent No. 1 from the array of parties was dismissed. This order had become final at the time when the impugned order was passed. However, we are informed that an appeal, with an application to condone delay has been filed against the aforesaid order. Be that as it may, an I.A. that was taken out being IA No. 4201 of 2018, was that given the position of respondent No. 1, his evidence should be taken by video conferencing. Instead of deciding this IA on merits, the impugned interim order went on to decide, prime facue, that respondent No. 1 ought to be deleted from the array of parties which, as has been stated above, was already finally decided by the Joint Registrar (Judicial).
3. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, has drawn our attention to the impugned order and stated that nothing has really been decided inasmuch as another date was given on which the application for video conferencing would be decided. We are of the view that given the fact that the order of the learned Registrar had not been appealed against, and given the fact that respondent No. 1 had moved an application for video conferencing based on the fact that he will continue to be party in the proceedings, this impugned order must necessarily be setaside and is accordingly setaside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. We make it clear that the appeal against the Registrar’s order will be decided leaving it open to both sides to raise all available contentions including the contention that the Registrar’s order has been accepted by the Respondent No. 1 and cannot, therefore, be appealed against.
4. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11364/2018
Atul Kumar Singh _________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Nitish Kumar & Ors ____________________________ Respondent(s)
(IA No. 77914 of 2018- Appropriate orders/Directions)
IA No. 82160 of 2018-Permission to place addl. Facts and grounds)
Date : 06-07-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) In-person
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Adv.
Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
5. Leave granted.
6. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
