Delhi High Court
M/S Esvee Polymers Mfg. Co & ... vs Jiwan Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 15 July, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15.07.2011
+ CM (M) No. 1373/2010 & CM Nos.19508/2010 & 10951/2011
M/S ESVEE POLYMERS MFG. CO & ANOTHER ........ Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sukhnda Dhamija &
Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocates.
Versus
JIWAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: Mr. K.K. Mehrotra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This petition has impugned the order dated 30.08.2010
whereby an application filed by respondents No. 9 & 10 under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Code') for recalling the order dated 27.07.2009 had been
dismissed.
2 The petitioners before this Court are respondents No. 9 &
10 before the trial Court. The landlord M/s Esvee Polymers
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. had filed an eviction petition against the
respondents under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act
(hereinafter referred to as the 'DRCA'). Respondents No. 1 to 6
were stated to be the tenants in the suit property whereas
respondents No. 7 to 10 were alleged to be sub-tenants. Eviction
petition is of the year 1994. It is an admitted position that no
written defence had been filed by respondents No. 9 & 10
(petitioners before this Court). Final arguments had been
concluded in this case on 08.12.2005. On 25.10.2005 a part of the
suit premises had been acquired by the Government. Thereafter
the landlord had moved an application seeking amendment of his
eviction petition with permission to place on record the amended
site plan showing the status of the suit land after the acquisition.
The prayer in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code
filed before the Additional Rent Controller was only to the limited
extent that the amended site plan in view of the aforenoted
acquisition be permitted to be placed on record. On 24.01.2008 it
was noted that the copy of this application has been furnished to
learned counsel for the respondents of whom respondents No. 1 to
6 and respondents No. 21 & 22 in Suit No. 667/2007 were
present; two copies had been kept in the court record to be
collected by the respondents who were not present on that date.
Matter was fixed for arguments on the aforenoted application.
Amended petition was taken on record vide order dated
15.04.2008; on 21.07.2008 it was noted that the written statement
has been filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 and counsel for
respondents No. 1 to 6 and respondents No. 21 & 22 had made a
statement that they had filed a written statement for respondents
No. 3 to 6 and respondents No. 21 & 22 also. None of other
respondents including respondents No. 9 & 10 had chosen to file
their written statement; on the subsequent date on 05.12.2008
Mr. Vinay Gupta counsel for respondents No. 9 & 10 had
appeared and matter had been fixed for arguments. On another
subsequent date i.e. 11.12.2008 presence of counsel for
respondents No. 9 & 10 was again marked.
3 Record shows that on all these subsequent dates when the
matter was being listed, no request had been made on behalf of
respondents No. 9 & 10 to either file their written statement or
affidavit. On 27.07.2009 on the statement made by counsel for
respondent No. 2, the respondent evidence stood closed.
Thereafter application under Section 151 of the Code had been
filed for recalling of the order dated 27.07.2009. The impugned
order had dismissed this application and rightly so.
4 Record shows that the eviction petition had been filed in the
year 1994; no written defence had been filed by respondents No.
9 & 10; on 08.08.2005 and 14.10.2005 counsel for respondents
No. 9 & 10 had made a categorical statement that they not want
to lead any evidence. Matter had been adjourned for final
arguments on 14.10.2005. Thereafter the application under Order
6 Rule 17 of the Code had been filed for the limited purpose to
place the amended site plan on record as part of the suit premises
had been acquired by the Government. No written statement was
filed to this amended petition either. The impugned order in no
manner calls for any interference. When admittedly there were no
written pleading by respondents No. 9 & 10 building up any
defence as also the clear statement of their counsel of two
consecutive dates that respondents No. 9 & 10 did not wish to
lead evidence; defendant evidence was correctly closed. Even
otherwise where was the scope of leading evidence by
respondents No. 9 & 10 in the absence of a defence; they cannot
be any evidence unless there is a pleading set up which in this
case there was none. There was no warrant to interfere with the
earlier order dated 27.07.2009. The impugned order in no manner
suffers from any infirmity.
5 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 15, 2011
a
