Bansal Trading Corporation vs M/S. Morgan Asia Limited
2000 Latest Caselaw 78 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen. J.

1. This is an application filed by the Defendants seeking inter alia the recalling of orders dated October 8,1996, previously passed in this suit. On that date the defense of the applicant had been struck off because of its failure to deposit the arrears of rent/compensation. Even subsequent to passing of these orders the Defendant was permitted opportunity, on the request of its Counsel, to deposit the relevant amount on July 11,1997. After several hearings, it was ordered that arrears of rent/damages would be paid to the Plaintiff. Against this order the applicant/defendant filed FAO (OS) 183/1997 which was dismissed in limine. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the applicant that as on date the amounts ordered by this Court have been paid. It is contended that there was no contumacious or intentional non-compliance of orders and that, in the interest of justice, the orders should be recalled.

2. The application has been vehemently opposed by the Plaintiff. Learned Counsel Mr. P.D. Gupta appearing for the Plaintiff has taken me through of the orders passed in the present case in order to show that the conduct of the Defendant has been very dilatory from the commencement of the litigation. This approach has been adopted to protract the litigation and with a view to harass the Plaintiff. The striking out of the defense of a party is an extreme step, with far reaching consequences for the Defendant. Party ought not to be made to suffer such a harsh order without sufficient cause. It is always to be passed by the Court with special circumspection and only when it is evident that it is necessary to do so, keeping in view the recalcitrance of the delinquent Defendant.

3. Even after the passing of the order dated 8.10.1996 the Court did not immediately proceed to decide the suit, as it could well have done. Considerable latitude and indulgence has even thereafter been extended to the Defendants all of which was employed only to protract the litigation. As mentioned above an appeal had also been filed in respect of an order which directed the payment of rent/damages by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The recalcitrance of the Defendant is unfortunately palpably evident. A finality must attach to judicial order. In allowing the application, which in my view without merit, a fillip will be given to a party not only to disobey of directions but also to elongate litigation inordinately. The number of hearings which have already taken place in this suit, as well as before the Division Bench, is ample example. However hesitant the Court may be in impending a full defense to be put forward, the interests of the opposite party have also to be kept in mind. In the case in hand, despite the passage of almost four years, it has not progressed towards final decision. Amendment have been carried out in the Delhi Rent Control Act, taking out of its purview tenancies where the rental is in excess of Rs.3500/-. It is the intention of the legislature that the no protection, beyond that envisaged by the Transfer of Property Act should be available to affluent tenants. Despite the avowed objective of ensuring that such tenants strictly honour the terms of their tenancies, suits for ejectment continue to defy final adjudication in the Courts, by adoption of dilatory and vexatious designs. Such attempts to prolong litigation must be deprecated and dealt with sternly.

4. The application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure but I see no justification whatsoever for invoking the inherent jurisdiction to recall the orders dated 8th October, 1996. The inherent powers of the Court are not to be invoked when specific provisions such as review are not available, inter alia, because of laches.

5. The application is dismissed, but since rent is being deposited and the order sought to be recalled has been complied with, albeit belatedly, there shall be no order as to costs.