Orders pronounced by a Judge in open court should be immediately made available to the parties: High Court of Delhi

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 5th October 2021 CM(M) 640 2021 & CM No.33116 2021RAM CHARAN AGGARWALTHROUGH LR Through Mr. Darpan Wadhwa Petitioner Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh PREM LATA & ANR. Through Mr. Ashish Dholakia Respondents Advocate with Mr. Akash Panwar and Mr. Ankit Banati Advocates HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has impugned the order dated 16th September 2021 passed by the Rent Controller Tis Hazari Courts Delhi in RC ARC 479653 2016 on the ground that the printout from the website of the Court shows that the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner in respect of the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 has been dismissed however the judgment had not been made available. On 22nd September 2021 notice was issued in the present petition on the submission of the petitioner that despite the fact that the website of the CM(M) 640 2021 Digitally SignedBy:MAMTA ARYASigning Date:07.10.202113:11:06Signature Not Verified District Court shows that the present leave to defend application has been dismissed the judgment was not made available. The operation of the impugned judgment was stayed only on account of its non availability. Today learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the impugned judgment of the Rent Controller has been obtained by him on 22nd September 2021 itself the date on which notice was issued in the present petition. It is contended that the said judgment was pronounced in open court on 16th September 2021 and merely because the same was uploaded few days later would not be a ground for the petitioner to file the present petition on the ground that the judgment was not in existence as has been stated in the present petition. There is nothing extraordinary about the judgment being uploaded few days after it was pronounced in open court. This is all the more relevant in the present case where the statute itself gives six months time period before the recovery of possession could be made by the landlord from the tenant. Therefore petitioner should have waited for a few days for the certified copy of the judgment to be made available before rushing to this Court. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 11th December 2020 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4022 2020 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu XIE & Ors. to contend that the judgment pronounced in open court should be made available on the same date or immediately thereafter. It is submitted that as was done by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for In the above said case before the Supreme Court the operative CM(M) 640 2021 Digitally SignedBy:MAMTA ARYASigning Date:07.10.202113:11:06Signature Not Verified portion of the judgment of the High Court was announced in open court on 31st July 2019. However the judgment was uploaded on 15th May 2020 after 9½ months. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that orders pronounced by a Judge in open court should be immediately made available to the parties so that the party aggrieved with the said order may invoke legal remedies against the said order. In the present case admittedly the judgment was pronounced in open court on 16th September 2021 and leave to defend application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed. The certified copy of the said judgment was made available on 22nd September 2021. Though there may have been some delay in making the judgment available the magnitude of the delay was not such so as to be covered within the ambit of the directions of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Further in the present case no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by a delay of few days in making the judgment available. In this regard refence may be made to Section 14(7) of the DRC Act which is set out herein below: “Section 14. Protection of tenant against eviction 7) Where an order for the recovery of possession of any premises is made on the ground specified in clause of the proviso to sub sectionthe landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order.” CM(M) 640 2021 Digitally SignedBy:MAMTA ARYASigning Date:07.10.202113:11:06Signature Not Verified Taking into account that Section 14(7) of the DRC Act itself provides for a period of six months before the said eviction order could be enforced against the petitioner tenant even if there was few days delay in uploading the said order or certified copy being made available no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The petitioner should have waited for a reasonable period of time for the judgment to be made available and challenged the same on merits. Instead the present petition has been filed casting aspersions on the conduct of the Rent Controller. The present petition is an abuse of the process of law and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25 000 . OCTOBER 05 2021 AMIT BANSAL J. CM(M) 640 2021 Digitally SignedBy:MAMTA ARYASigning Date:07.10.202113:11:06Signature Not Verified 

Summary: There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that orders pronounced by a Judge in open court should be immediately made available to the parties so that the party aggrieved with the said order may invoke legal remedies against the said order as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi through a learned bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal in the case of Ram Charan Aggarwal Vs Prem Lata &amp; Anr [CM(M) 640/2021 &amp; CM No.33116/2021 (stay)]. The brief facts of the case are that on 22nd September, 2021, notice was issued in the present petition on the submission of the petitioner that despite the fact that the website of the District Court shows that the present leave to defend application has been dismissed; the judgment was not made available. The operation of the impugned judgment was stayed only on account of its non-availability. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has impugned the order dated 16th September, 2021 passed by the Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RC ARC 479653/2016 on the ground that the printout from the website of the Court shows that the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner in respect of the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been dismissed, however, the judgment had not been made available. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the order the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu XIE &amp; Ors to contend that the judgment pronounced in open court should be made available on the same date or immediately thereafter. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ashish Dholakia, contended that the said judgment was pronounced in open court on 16th September, 2021 and merely because the same was uploaded few days later would not be a ground for the petitioner to file the present petition on the ground that the judgment was not in existence, as has been stated in the present petition. After hearing both the parties, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi opined that “However, the judgment was uploaded on 15th May, 2020 after 9½ months. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that orders pronounced by a Judge in open court should be immediately made available to the parties so that the party aggrieved with the said order may invoke legal remedies against the said order. In the present case, admittedly the judgment was pronounced in open court on 16th September, 2021 and leave to defend application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed. The certified copy of the said judgment was made available on 22nd September, 2021. Though there may have been some delay in making the judgment available, the magnitude of the delay was not such so as to be covered within the ambit of the directions of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”