FAO(OS) No.238/2009 Page No.1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + F.A.O. (OS) NO.238 OF 2009 & C.M. NO.8323 OF 2009 % Date of decision: 6th August, 2009 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh & Mr. Dhruva Bhagat, Advocates. versus MOUNT SHIVALIK BREWERIES LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Lakshmi Kruttika Vijay, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL 1. Whether Reporters of the local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? [NO] 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? [NO] 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [NO] J U D G M E N T MUKUL MUDGAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal arises against the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge in I.A. No.4446 of 2009 in C.S. (OS) No.547 of 2009 on 1st April, 2009. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the following order was passed by this court on 7th July, 2009 :- “Mr. Amarjit Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised several grievances in the appeal formulated in the memo of appeal but has urged in particular that in respect of ex-parte order passed on 1st April, 2009, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC was moved by the appellant on 16th April, 2009, on which the notice was issued for 12th May, 2009 for which, the matter was taken up and posted for 23rd July, 2009 by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved from this, the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the month of July being the peak month for consumption of beer, the impugned order continues to hurt the appellant’s interest as the excise license is granted only for one year and his application for vacating ex-parte order is not being considered at any early date. FAO(OS) No.238/2009 Page No.2 of 2 Mr. Anand, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that he has no objection in case, the matter is heard and disposed of early by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we hope and trust that in view of the urgency expressed by the larned counsel for the appellant, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC are heard on the next date. Both the learned counsel submit that they will not take for more than half an hour each. They have also requested that the date of 23rd July, 2009, fixed before the learned Single Judge may be advanced. Accordingly, upon their request, the parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 17th July, 2009. Needless to say it will be open to the appellant to urge the pleas raised in the appeal before the learned Single Judge. List the appeal on 6th August, 2009 before this Court.” 3. It is not in dispute that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC filed by the appellant have been heard and orders reserved thereon by learned Single Judge. Thus, this appeal has become infructuous and accordingly stands disposed of. The pending application stands disposed of as well. 4. However, we make it clear that whichever party, if is aggrieved by the order which may now be passed by the learned Single Judge, shall have full rights to challenge the said order in accordance with law including the issues raised in this appeal. MUKUL MUDGAL [JUDGE] NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL [JUDGE] AUGUST 06, 2009 ‘AA’