Delhi High Court
Anju Bala vs Santosh Arora on 19 April, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2729
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.04.2023
+ CM(M) 621/2023
ANJU BALA ..... Petitioner
versus
SANTOSH ARORA ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shayuk Kumar and Mr. Rohit Saroj,
Advocates.
For the Respondent :
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 18999/2023
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 621/2023
3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 15.03.2023 in Civ. DJ No.
321/2019 titled as "Santosh Arora Vs. Anju Bala" whereby an
application under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 was dismissed
by the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was granted
conditional leave to defend subject to deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- as against
the full claim amount of Rs.32,00,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2023
16:18:27
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2729
5. Learned counsel submits that it was on an application under
Section 151 of CPC, 1908 citing the absolutely penurious financial
condition of the petitioner, that the learned Trial Court had reduced the
conditional pre-deposit from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- to be
deposited within 15 days from the order dated 28.09.2022 .
6. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view her financial
condition, the petitioner had filed an application under Order XLVII
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking review of the order dated
20.09.2022 to reduce the amount further.
7. Learned counsel submits that learned Trial Court did not consider
the financial condition of the petitioner and dismissed the aforesaid
review application.
8. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is that she
had in fact taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondent for the
purpose of hospitalization of her husband and in lieu of such loan, had
executed some blank cheques which were stated to have been misused
by the respondent by filing the subject suit whereby the inflated claim of
Rs.32,00,000/- was raised.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a single
mother having an earning of not more than Rs.15,000-16,000/- in which
the petitioner also has to take care of her child, apart from payment of
rent.
10. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid earning is by means
of tiffin services.
11. Learned counsel submits that the deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- itself is
an onerous burden upon the petitioner which she may not be able to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2023
16:18:27
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2729
discharge.
12. This court has considered the aforesaid submissions of the
learned counsel and also perused the impugned order.
13. This court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order
does not require any intervention by this court under the Supervisory
Jurisdiction. However, on an overall conspectus of the facts as also the
financial condition of the petitioner, this court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner ought to deposit the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
as directed vide order dated 20.09.2022, however, the same be converted
into instalments of Rs.50,000/- each payable for the next 8 months.
14. In view of the aforesaid modification, the petition is disposed of.
15. Copy of this order be sent to the respondents.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J .
APRIL 19, 2023/AT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:24.04.2023
16:18:27
