DALBIR SINGH Vs. SATISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

(2.) The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against his sons in respect of property bearing No. P-24, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi- 110091. In the said suit, the Plaintiff/Petitioner had moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was heard on 18th February, 2020 and thereafter reserved for orders. The grievance of the Petitioner in this petition is that despite the matter being reserved for orders, no orders were pronounced in the Order XII Rule 6 application. Accordingly, the present petition seeks directions to be given for early disposal of the said application.

(3.) Mr. Harsh Kumar, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the grievance of the Petitioner is that the order was not pronounced for a long time. On 8th July, 2020, due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the matter was simply adjourned for orders to 31st July, 2020. Ld. Counsel submits that this Court in Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera [CM (M) 1637/2019, decided on 18th November, 2019], clearly holds that pronouncement of orders and judgements cannot be delayed. In a recent order passed by a ld. Single Judge of this Court in Puneet Kumar v. Registrar General [W.P.(C) No. 2999/2020, decided on 27th April, 2020], it has been clarified that the various orders relating to the lockdown would not prohibit the Trial Court from pronouncing the final order/judgment in the petitions pending before it.