Delhi High Court
Niranjan Kumar vs Poonam Chawla on 12 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 8th March, 2010
Date of Order: 12th March, 2010
CM(M) No. 267/2010
% 12.03.2010
Niranjan Kumar ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shahid Azad, Advocate
Versus
Poonam Chawla ... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.R.Chawla, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 3rd
November, 2009 whereby an application of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for
allowing him to lead defence was dismissed. The brief facts necessary for disposal
of this petition as stated by the trial Court are as under:
Briefly, suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and
damages was filed by plaintiff claiming himself as the owner of the
property and the defendant as a tenant. Vide order dated
28.3.2005, the learned Predecessor allowed an application under
Order 39 Rule 10 CPC filed by plaintiff, thereby directing the
defendant to deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs.12,000/- per month
and to pay the future rent month to month. The order was not
complied with an application was moved for extension of time.
Extension of time was granted for compliance of the order. Again,
order was not complied by the defendant and application for
extension of time was filed. Vide order dated 25.7.2005, the
learned Predecessor dismissed the application, observing that the
time could have been extended for a period of 30 days in
accordance with Section 148 CPC and further extension of time
was not permissible under Section 148 of CPC. Accordingly, the
application for extension of time for compliance of order was
dismissed and the defence was struck off. Order dated 25.7.2005
was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM(M)
No. 2545/2005. Vide order dated 24.10.2005 the Hon'ble High
Court dismissed the petition. The order was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 17.10.2006 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dismissed SLP(C) No. 25073 of 2005. The order of
the learned Predecessor striking out defence reached to finality by
the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 29.7.2008 in
CM(M) No. 374/2008, the Hon'ble High Court directed the
defendant to deposit the arrears of user charges, but the findings in
respect of striking off defence by this court was not changed.
2. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that since the
petitioner had deposited the rent/user charges later on after taking liberty from the
Court the petitioner was entitled to defend the suit.
3. The plea taken by the petitioner is misconceived. The petitioner's
defence was struck off by the trial Court as far back as on 25th July, 2005. This order
of the trial Court was assailed by the petitioner right up to Supreme Court and this
order became final. This order of striking off defence, which attained finality upto
Supreme Court, could not have been set aside either by the High Court or by the trial
Court. The petitioner was given liberty to make payment of the rent/user charges
without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The right which had accrued to the
respondent was not taken away.
4. The order of the trial Court is within jurisdiction and I find no reason to
interfere with the order. The petition is hereby dismissed.
March 12, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
