Delhi High Court Dismisses Omar Abdullah's Plea Challenging the "Requirement of Obtaining Consent Of The Other Party" Stipulated In Office Order On Early Hearing
On Tuesday, the Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court dismissed in limine the petition challenging the Office order dated 26.04.2020, issued by the Registrar General of the High Court as meritless. The petition was filed by Omar Abdullah, challenging the consent requirement stipulated in the office order in question. The said...
On Tuesday, the Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court dismissed in limine the petition challenging the Office order dated 26.04.2020, issued by the Registrar General of the High Court as meritless.
The petition was filed by Omar Abdullah, challenging the consent requirement stipulated in the office order in question. The said office order issued by the Registrar provided for certain categories of pending matters that would be taken up for disposal via Video Conferencing subject to certain conditions as laid down in the order. One such condition was the requirement of obtaining consent from the other side before moving the court with an application for final hearing of matters that are ripe for arguments.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Adv. Ms. Rajkotia argued that, the order ought to be modified in respect of the requirement of obtaining consent of the other party owing to the scope of It being misused. It was alleged that, respondent no. 2, Omar Abdullah's wife Payal Abdullah, in the present case had been indulging in such misuse by declining to give her consent for final hearing of MAT.APP.(FC) No.135 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, which was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 01.02.2017, passed by a Division Bench of this court. The matter relates to Omar Abdullah's matrimonial appeal against a 2016 trial court order, which dismissed his divorce petition, and the same is listed for final hearing since February 2017.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent Sr. Adv. Mr. Sood had argued that it was the voluminous nature of the files involved in the present case owing to which the respondent was not comfortable with virtual hearing of the matter. The court denied to make any pronouncement on this aspect as it did not fall within the scope of the present petition which was limited only to the office order in question.
The court held that, refusal on part of the respondent in the present case to give her consent for an early hearing of the pending appeal in no manner warrants any interreference or modification with the Office Order dated 26.04.2020. It accordingly dismissed the petition in limine along with the application.
[Read Order]