Dalbir Singh v. Satish Chand (2020) 273 Taxman 317 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Pronouncement of orders-Repeated adjournments for orders or for pronouncement of judgment where arguments have been heard and orders have been reserved would not be permissible even during lockdown. [S. 260A, Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC]

Petitioner, had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against his sons in respect of property-In said suit, petitioner had moved an application under Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC, which was heard on 18-2-2020 and thereafter was reserved for orders. Petitioner submitted that despite matter being reserved for orders, no orders were pronounced in Order XII, Rule 6 application.  Accordingly, petitioner filed instant petition seeking directions to be given for early disposal of said application. As per settled law, orders which are reserved have to be pronounced within two months and if they are not pronounced for three months, litigant is entitled to approach High Court.  National lockdown could not have acted as an impediment in pronouncement of orders because once matter is heard and orders are reserved, no further hearing would be required, only pronouncement of order/judgment needs to take place. Therefore, repeated adjournments for orders or for pronouncement of judgment would not be permissible even during lockdown.