Title: Raghav Chadha vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat (FAO 264/2023)
Date of Decision: October 17, 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Introduction
In the matter of FAO 264/2023, the Delhi High Court reviewed an order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which had recalled an earlier order granting interim relief to the appellant, Raghav Chadha. The case revolved around the revocation of an official accommodation allotment by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the subsequent legal actions undertaken by the appellant.
Facts of the Case
Raghav Chadha, the appellant, was a Member of the Rajya Sabha, and he had been allotted an official accommodation at Bungalow No. AB-5, Pandara Road, New Delhi. Subsequently, the allotment was cancelled, and he was offered an alternative accommodation. Dissatisfied with this development, Chadha filed a suit seeking relief against dispossession and other related claims.
The appellant had also sought interim protection through an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and had applied for leave under section 80(2) of the CPC to file the suit without serving notice to the respondent.
On April 18, 2023, the learned Trial Court granted ad-interim protection to the appellant and issued notice to the respondent on the application under section 80(2) of the CPC. Importantly, the respondent was neither represented nor heard during the making of this order.
The respondent subsequently filed a review application under Order XLVII Rule 3 read with Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, arguing that the grant of interim relief was contrary to the provisions of section 80(1) and 80(2) of CPC. The respondent contended that the Court could not have granted any relief without first deciding the application under section 80(2) CPC and that the appellant had originally sought leave under section 80(2) but later changed his position, creating a contradictory stance.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The learned Trial Court, in its impugned order dated 05.10.2023, reviewed and set aside the interim relief granted to the appellant, as well as the notice issued to the respondent on the application under section 80(2) of CPC. The key findings of the Court included: The Court held that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 80(2) of CPC. The appellant’s argument regarding substantial compliance of the notice requirement under Section 80(1) was rejected.
The Court also noted that the appellant had initially sought leave under section 80(2) but later argued that no notice under Section 80(1) was required, creating a contradictory position.
The Court emphasized that the application for review was allowed based on the interpretation given by the Supreme Court regarding Section 80(2) of CPC. Since the Court found that no urgent or immediate relief needed to be granted, the Court ordered the return of the plaint for presentation after complying with the requirement of Section 80(1) of CPC.
This judgment by the Delhi High Court emphasizes the significance of complying with statutory notice requirements and the consequences of changing positions during legal proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Tarishi Verma
Delhi High Court emphasized adherence to statutory notice requirements, and ordered the plaint's return
0
