DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. vs DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS.

$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 22/2021 and IA Nos.742/2021, 744/2021, 745/2021, 747/2021, 2872/2021, 9291/2021, 16065/2022

DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. ….. Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Aakanksha Nehra and Mr. Devansu Jain, Advs.

versus

DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS. . ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Nishant Datta and Mr.
Chirag Rathi, Advs. for Defendants 1 and 2

+ CS(OS) 682/2017 and IA Nos.4172/2020, 4523/2020, 4550/2020, 4574/2020, 4575/2020, 1919/2021, 4568/2021, 10396/2021, 11603/2021, 11604/2021, 17128/2021, 5723/2022, 16953/2022 AND 25950/2023

DR SURAJ MUNJAL ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Nishant Datta and Mr.
Chirag Rathi, Adv.

versus

MR. CHANDAN MUNJAL & ORS. …… Defendants
Through: Ms. Aakanksha Nehra and Mr. Devansu Jain, Advs. for Defendants 1 and 4

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 02.02.2024

REVIEW PET. 184/2023

1. This Review Petition seeks review of the order dated 11 July 2023 passed by me, which reads thus:

“1. Ms. Akansha Nehra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff initially drew my attention to certain earlier orders which envisaged conjoint hearing of this suit along with CS(OS) 682/2017.

2. Though such orders are in existence, I queried of Ms. Akansha as to whether it was her submission that the present suit cannot be heard individually and can only be adjudicated in conjunction with CS (OS) 682/2017, as one suit is an IP suit and the other is a non-IP suit.

3. She submits that the present suit is not capable of being decided individually and can only be decided along with CS (OS) 682/2017.

4. Ms. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, objects to this submission and submits that the present suit is distinct and can be decided on its own.

5. Nonetheless, in view of the submission made by Ms. Nehra, subject to orders of Hon’ble the Judge-in-charge (Original Side), list this matter along with all pending applications along with CS (OS) 682/2017 before whichever Bench the learned Judge-in-charge of the Original Side deems appropriate, on 19 July 2023, on which date I am told that CS(OS) 682/2017 is already listed.”

2. The only ground urged in the Review Petition is that the statement of learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, that C.S. (Comm) 22/2021 and C.S. (OS) 682/2017 had to be heard together, is an incorrect statement.
3. It is sought to be argued that this Court proceeded on the basis of the said statement in directing both the matters to be listed together.

4. I have not only noted the statement of learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that the two matters have to be heard together, but have also noted the submissions of the defendants to the contrary. I have expressed no opinion either way. It is only that, in view of the statement made by the plaintiffs, I have directed both the matters to be listed together.
5. I do not see how any ground for review of this order can be made out. The only submission urged at the bar is that the contention of the plaintiffs is that the two suits have to be heard together is incorrect. Even assuming this to be the position, making of an erroneous submission by a Counsel is not one of the grounds of review recognized by Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, unless it has led to a consequent error in the order that came to be passed.
6. Needless to say, it would be open to the defendants to convince the Court, before which the matters are listed, that the two cases are not connected and have to be heard individually. I have not precluded them from doing so.
7. No ground for review is made out.
8. The Review Petition is completely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
9. List CS (OS) 682/2017 and CS (Comm) 22/2021 before the appropriate Bench subject to orders of Hon’ble the Judge In-charge (Original Side) on 8 February 2024.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2024
rb

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

CS(COMM) 22/2021 & cont. matter Page 1 of 4