Amita Kaushish & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kaushish & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No 11192 Of 1995
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.14939 of 1994)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.14939 of 1994)
Petitioner: Amita Kaushish & Ors.
Respondent: Sanjay Kaushish & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No 11192 Of 1995
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.14939 of 1994)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.14939 of 1994)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 16, 1995
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Interlocutory applications – Whether pending the stay of the trial of the suit, directions or order by way of interlocutory applications can be taken? – Held yes – The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory reliefs as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The impugned order is only a direction to list the appeal FAO (OS) No.221/91 filed by the appellants for disposal pending in the High Court. The Division Bench by its order dated July 12, 1994 directed to list the appeal for final hearing on October 17, 1994 within first five cases. It would appear that there is long drawn litigation inter se parties. Since the time fixed by the High Court is already over and the appeal is yet to be disposed of, we request the High Court to appropriately fix an early date for disposal, preferably before the end of this year.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that on account of the stay of the suit, his clients are prevented to take any direction or order by way of interlocutory application. The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory reliefs as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances.
3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs..ls1
1. Leave granted.
2. The impugned order is only a direction to list the appeal FAO (OS) No.221/91 filed by the appellants for disposal pending in the High Court. The Division Bench by its order dated July 12, 1994 directed to list the appeal for final hearing on October 17, 1994 within first five cases. It would appear that there is long drawn litigation inter se parties. Since the time fixed by the High Court is already over and the appeal is yet to be disposed of, we request the High Court to appropriately fix an early date for disposal, preferably before the end of this year.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that on account of the stay of the suit, his clients are prevented to take any direction or order by way of interlocutory application. The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory reliefs as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances.
3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs..ls1
