Pranay Dubey & Anr vs Smt. Meena Kumari & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 5782 Del

$~33
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 1545/2009 & IA No.10833/2016
       PRANAY DUBEY & ANR                          ..... Plaintiffs
                   Through : Plaintiff No.2 in person

                           versus

       SMT. MEENA KUMARI & OTHERS                 ..... Defendants
                    Through : Mr. D.V. Khatri, Advocate for D-1 & 3.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                    ORDER

       %            02.09.2016

1.     This order is continuation of the order dated 29.8.2016.          On

29.8.2016, the plaintiff No.2 had requested that time for paying the costs to the other side as imposed by the Division Bench in the order dated 25.5.2015, passed in RFA(OS)No.11/2016 may be extended by one week. Though the counsel for the defendants No.1 and 3 had opposed the said request for extension of time and informed the Court that aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench, his clients had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which had yet to be listed, it was directed that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants No.1 and 3, the plaintiffs shall pay the costs of Rs.50,000/- to the said defendants, through counsel, within one week as a last opportunity. It was also clarified that if the costs are not paid within the extended timeline, no further opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiffs in that regard.

2. Today, the plaintiff No.2, who appears in person, states that he has deposited the costs of Rs.50,000/- (through RTGS) into the account of defendant No.2. It may be noted that no such direction issued by the Division Bench in the order dated 25.5.2016 and nor was any such direction issued by this Court. In fact, the defendant No.2 was not even represented before the Division Bench on 25.05.2016 or before this Court on 29.08.2016.

3. In view of the position that emerges above, clearly, the plaintiffs are in non-compliance of the order dated 25.5.2016, passed by the Division Bench. The plaintiff No.2's claim that he has deposited the costs in question into the account of the defendant No.2 through RTGS will not be of any assistance. Further, having regard to the fact that the Division Bench had fixed a specific timeline and had granted one final opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence within three months reckoned from 25.5.2016, and conclude it not later than 31.8.2016, and the said period has expired, without any evidence having been led by the plaintiffs, this Court is not in a position to grant any further time to the plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs being in default of the order dated 25.5.2016, passed by the Division Bench, this Court has no option but to dismiss the present suit for non-prosecution, along with the pending application. Ordered accordingly.

5. The date already fixed in the case, i.e., 8.9.2016 stands cancelled.

     SEPTEMBER 02, 2016/sk/ap                                HIMA KOHLI, J