Mrs.Om Lata Bahadur & Anr. vs Mrs.Pradeep Garg & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4011 Del

26
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CS(OS) 143/2009

      MRS.OM LATA BAHADUR & ANR.                 ..... Plaintiffs
                    Through None
                    versus
      MRS.PRADEEP GARG & ANR.                    ..... Defendants
                    Through: Mr.Ajay Jain, Mr.Abhishek Jain &
                    Mr.Virender Rana, Advocates
                    Ms.Yoothica Pallavi, Advocate for
                    Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for D-2

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                        ORDER

% 19.05.2015

1. Vide order dated 15.5.2105 passed by the learned Joint

Registrar, the case was directed to be placed before the court with an

observation that under an earlier order dated 10.4.1015, the present

suit was restored, subject to costs of `5,000/- to be paid by the

plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 through counsel within three weeks

from the said date, but the costs had not been paid till date.

2. It is pertinent to note that the present suit was dismissed in

default on 17.1.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed an application

for restoration of the suit(IA No.2739/2011) which was finally allowed

vide order dated 10.4.2015, subject to payment of costs of `5,000/- to

the defendant No.1 through counsel, within three weeks from the date

of the said order.

3. On 10.4.2015, counsel for the defendant No.1 had also stated

that the plaintiffs had not complied with the order dated 15.7.2010,

passed by the Joint Registrar whereunder, costs of `1,000/- were

imposed which were to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee. On 15.5.2015, proxy counsel for the plaintiff had

appeared before the Joint Registrar and had submitted that the costs

imposed vide order dated 15.7.2010 had been deposited. She was

directed to file the receipt in the Registry. However, it was noted that

the costs of `5,000/- imposed vide order dated 10.4.2015 were not

paid to the other side. As a result, the case was directed to be placed

before the court. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states that costs

have not been paid till date.

4. On the first call, the case was passed over to await the presence

of the counsel for the plaintiffs. It is 3.45PM now. Neither the

plaintiffs, nor their counsel is present.

5. In view of the above, this court has no option but to dismiss the

suit in default and for non-prosecution. Ordered accordingly.

HIMA KOHLI, J MAY 19, 2015 mk