Jing Cheng India vs Rattan Chand (Decesed) Thr Lrs ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3339 Del

*            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

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.

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