Delhi High Court
Sh.Naveen Kumar Mittal vs M/S Pritam Electric Company on 7 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M) No. 853/2013 & C.M.No.13148/2013 (Stay)
% 07th November, 2014
SH.NAVEEN KUMAR MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
versus
M/S PRITAM ELECTRIC COMPANY ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Ajay Bahl, Advocate.
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 06.8.2013 by which the trial court struck off
the defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant because of non-compliance by
the petitioner/defendant/tenant of the order to file all documents submitted
by the petitioner/defendant/tenant signed in Hindi to the Governmental
authorities between the years 1993-2006.
2. The disputes with respect to submitting of signatures of the
petitioner/defendant/tenant to the Governmental authorities arose because
the petitioner/defendant/tenant disputed his signatures on the rent agreement
CM(M) No.853/2013 page 1 of 3
and counterfoils of rent receipts, and had signed his pleadings both in
English and Hindi.
3. It is not unknown that the tenants in a suit for possession which is
filed in civil courts in Delhi, in most of the cases do not have substantial
defences, and therefore every trick in the book and not in the book is used to
somehow or the other delay and drag the suit for possession. The present
petition as also the delaying tactics of the petitioner/defendant/tenant in the
trial court is clearly a part of this malafide process.
4. The original order passed by the trial court in this case is dated
03.7.2012, and which is a detailed order giving reasons why the
petitioner/defendant/tenant must file all documents bearing his signatures in
Hindi submitted to the Governmental authorities between the years 1993-
2006, and as stated above it is because of the respondent/plaintiff filing the
rent agreement and counterfoils of rent receipts in court showing the
signatures of the petitioner/defendant/tenant in Hindi but the petitioner had
denied the same.
5. By the order dated 03.7.2012, the petitioner/defendant/tenant had to
file an affidavit giving details of all the documents which were signed by the
petitioner/defendant/tenant in Hindi and submitted to the Governmental
CM(M) No.853/2013 page 2 of 3
authorities between the years 1993-2006, but the petitioner/defendant/tenant
filed only one document being a copy of his passport and did not
deliberately file an affidavit that he had not signed in Hindi in any other
documents submitted to the Governmental authorities between the years
1993-2006. This position continues till the date thus showing the
contumacious conduct of the petitioner/defendant/tenant.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioner/defendant/tenant failed to
comply with the order dated 03.7.2012, by the impugned detailed order
dated 06.8.2013, the trial court in my opinion has rightly struck off the
defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant. The petitioner/defendant/tenant in
any case will have a right to cross-examine the witnesses of the
respondent/plaintiff/landlord and also to argue at the stage of final
arguments.
7. The present petition being an abuse of the process of the law is
dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the
respondent within a period of six weeks from today.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
NOVEMBER 07, 2014
KA
CM(M) No.853/2013 page 3 of 3
