* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 702/2014 & C.M.No.11816/2014
% JULY 25, 2014
JING CHENG INDIA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
RATTAN CHAND (DECESED) THR LRS SUDARSHAN ANAND & ORS
...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 24.2.2011 by which the defence of the defendant was struck off.
2. There are various reasons why this Court cannot interfere in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and which are:-
(i) Petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts because the petitioner/defendant is making out a case by filing only one impugned order dated 24.2.2011, but orders prior thereto which led to striking off the CM(M) No. 702/2014 Page 1 of 3 defence have deliberately not been filed. From the list of dates it is however shown that the petitioner/defendant was served way back on 04.1.2006, but did not appear and hence was proceeded ex parte. The ex parte proceedings were set aside by the order dated 03.4.2007 subject to costs of Rs.500/- and written statement was to be filed on the next date fixed. But, right from 2007 till 2011, neither costs were paid nor written statement was filed, and therefore the impugned order was passed on 24.2.2011 striking off the defence. Therefore, a simplicitor case being made out by stating that since costs have not been paid and time now be granted for payment of costs, amounts to clear misleading of this Court.
(ii) In the year 2014, a petition cannot be filed to challenge the order of the year 2011, and more so because the application for setting aside of the order dated 24.2.2011 was filed as many as 2½ years later on 21.5.2013. The application, therefore itself was not only barred by limitation but also by delay and laches.
(iii) The subject suit is for recovery of just an amount of Rs.64,500/-, and it is clear from the tactics of the petitioner/defendant that all efforts are being made to delay the disposal of the suit.
CM(M) No. 702/2014 Page 2 of 3
3. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JULY 25, 2014 KA CM(M) No. 702/2014 Page 3 of 3