M/S SAI WATCHES PVT. CO. LTD. & ORS. vs M/S TITAN COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 + C.R.P. 49/2025 M/S SAI WATCHES PVT. CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Parth Yadav, Advocate. versus M/S TITAN COMPANY LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] seeking to challenge an order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, South-East, Saket, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. 2. The order under challenge in the present Petition is an order which directs issue of summons and notice in the suit and directs filing of deficit Court fee. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Impugned Order directs the Petitioners (Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court) to pay ad valerum Court fee instead of Court fee to be paid in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. 4. At the outset, a query has been put to learned Counsel for the Petitioners as to how the present Petition is maintainable in view of the Proviso to Section 115, CPC and learned Counsel in this behalf seeks to rely Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI C.R.P. 49/2025 Page 1 of 3 NARAYAN Signing Date:02.05.2025 18:23:19 on the judgment of the Delhi High Court Bar Association & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi1. 5. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are without merit. It is no longer res integra that the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC cannot be invoked except where an order if made in favour of the revisionist would have finally disposed off the suit or proceedings. This is set out in the proviso to Section 115 of th