Delhi High Court
Dharampal Chhabra vs Gagan Kakkar on 20 April, 2015
#13
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 968/2014 & I.As. 6224/2014, 6597-6598/2015
DHARAMPAL CHHABRA ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Ashish Mohan with Mr. Chetan
Rai Wahi and Ms. Mehak Kanwar,
Advocates
versus
GAGAN KAKKAR ..... Defendant
Through Mr. Mohit Madan, Advocate
% Date of Decision: 20th April, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
I.A. 7119/2015
1. Present application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 14A read with
Section 151 CPC for striking out the defence of the defendant.
2. It is pertinent to mention that the present suit has been filed for
possession, mesne profit and damages.
3. While plaintiff alleges that defendant is a tenant of the suit premises,
the defendant claims that he is the owner of the suit property as his father
had purchased the property by agreement to sell dated 7th October, 2013 by
way of possession letter as well as general power of attorney.
4. Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the
documents relied upon by the defendant are forged and unstamped. He
submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2012 (1) SCC 656 the
aforesaid documents do not confer any right, title or interest in the suit
property upon the defendant's father.
5. Mr. Ashish Mohan lastly states that the defendant has been declared a
Proclaimed Offender and is not available at the address mentioned in the
affidavit accompanying the written statement.
6. Mr. Mohit Madan, learned counsel for the defendant states that the
defendant has been wrongly declared a proclaimed offender. He, however,
candidly states that the defendant cannot furnish his true and correct address
as he has been declared a Proclaimed Offender. He also states that non
declaration of the correct address has no relevance to the present
proceedings as the defendant has been regularly appearing through counsel
and has been defending the present suit without taking any adjournment.
7. Mr. Mohit Madan further states that the plaintiff has no locus standi to
file the present suit as he is not even a landlord.
8. In rejoinder, Mr. Ashish Mohan disputes the statement and contention
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant.
9. This Court is of the opinion that it should not allow a party
absconding from justice to advance arguments and/or defend the suit. A
party to a legal proceeding has a right to be heard, provided the party
cooperates with the judicial system and complies with its order.
10. If the defendant has been wrongly declared a Proclaimed Offender,
the remedy of the defendant is in filing a proceeding challenging the order
declaring him to be a proclaimed offender. This Court is of the view that the
defendant cannot abscond from justice and at the same time claim a right to
defend himself in the present suit.
11. In any event, the admitted position is that the registered address of the
defendant is false. Sub-Rule (5) of Order VI Rule 14A of CPC clearly
provides the consequences. It states that where the registered address of a
party is not filed within the specified time or is discovered by the Court to be
incomplete, false or fictitious, the Court may, either on its own motion, or on
the application of any party, order striking out the defence where such
registered address was furnished by a defendant and he be placed in the
same position as if he had not put any defence.
12. In Yellappa (d) by L.Rs. vs. Smt. Yashodbai and Others, AIR 2004
Karnataka 388 has held as under:-
"4. The provisions of Rule 14-A are mandatory and postulate
a disastrous consequence to the party who does not furnish a
correct and a proper address. If the plaintiff furnishes
incomplete, false or fictitious address, the Court can stay the
further proceedings of the suit and if the defendant commits
fault in not giving the proper and correct address, the defence is
to be struck off and the defendant is placed in a positron as if he
has not put up any defence......"
13. Consequently, present application is allowed and the defence of the
defendant is struck out as admittedly the defendant is not available at the
address mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the written statement.
I.A. 6597/2015 [U/o. 12 Rule 6 CPC]
Keeping in view the aforesaid order, Mr. Ashish Mohan wishes to
withdraw the present application at this stage.
Consequently, the same is dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.
CS(OS) 968/2014 & I.As. 6224/2014, 6598/2015
Mr. Ashish Mohan prays for and is permitted to file evidence by way
of affidavit within two weeks.
List before Joint Registrar on 18th May, 2015.
MANMOHAN, J
APRIL 20, 2015
rn
