Delhi High Court
Hanif (Deleted) & Ors vs Sant Singh Bal on 24 January, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th January, 2018
+ CM(M) 518/2017 and CM 17528/2017
HANIF (DELETED) & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate
versus
SANT SINGH BAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dinesh Singh Chaudhary,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioners were not defendants in the civil suit (now
registered as CS SCJ 84034/2016) when it was originally presented
against one Hanif shown as second defendant, the prayer being for
decree of possession, payment of rent and mesne profits in respect of
property described as shop no.8, situated in Khasra No.27, Village
Saidulajab, Opposite Saket, New Delhi, the respondent being the
plaintiff. The cause title (of the parties) is defective as the reference to
the name of deceased Hanif is incorrect and misleading.
2. The plaintiff statedly realised the need to implead the
petitioners as defendants upon an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) being moved on their behalf
seeking impleadment on the ground that they were the party in
possession and use of the premises in question. Thus, the plaintiff
moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for suitable
amendments to the plaint and also to the array of parties. The
amendment was allowed by order dated 20.02.2016.
3. It is by virtue of the aforesaid order that the petitioners, then
applicants under Order I Rule 10 CPC, became defendant nos.2 to 7 in
the suit. The trial court called them upon to submit their written
statement. It is clear from a perusal of the proceedings recorded
thereafter that the petitioners dragged their feet avoiding to file their
written statement. The opportunity for filing written statement stood
closed by order dated 03.05.2016. Though the plaintiff of the suit had
submitted at that stage that he was entitled to a decree under Order
VIII rule 10 CPC, the matter was adjourned as time was sought by him
to come with further documents and for argument to be addressed on
the said issue.
4. The matter kept hanging fire thereafter for some reason or the
other till the petitioners moved an application under Section 151 CPC
on 03.09.2016 seeking recall of the order whereby their right to file
written statement had been closed. The said application was
eventually dismissed by the trial court by the order dated 04.01.2017
which is impugned by the petition at hand.
5. Though it is clear from perusal of the record that the petitioners
are guilty of intentional delay, there being virtually no substance or
merit in the reasons set out by them for the default in submitting the
written statement, the counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded
at this stage that in order to avoid further delay in adjudication, one
last opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to file their written
statement and for such purposes suitable terms may be enforced as
deemed proper by the court.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set
aside. The right of the petitioners to file written statement is revived
subject to costs of Rs.25,000/- with the rider that they shall file their
written statement on or before 19.02.2018, as is stated by both sides to
be the date of hearing fixed before the trial court. The payment of
costs will be a pre-condition to the written statement being
entertained. In case costs are not paid or the written statement is not
filed within the time allowed, the trial judge will have the jurisdiction
and power to strike out the defence of the petitioners and proceed
further in accordance with law.
7. The petition and the applications stand disposed of in above
terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 24, 2018
yg
