Delhi District Court
Tej Pal Singh vs North Delhi Power Limited on 13 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. KULDEEP NARAYAN: ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE18: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
SUIT NO.674/2014
1. Tej Pal Singh,
S/o Shri Kuldeep Singh
A96, Group Industrial Area,
Wazirpur Indsutrial Area,
New Delhi. .......... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. North Delhi Power Limited,
Through Its C. E. O.
Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi110009 ...... Defendants
O R D E R:
13.12.2014
1. This order shall decide an application Under Order 7 Rule 6, 10 and 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the defendant. The application was moved on 16.11.2011. The plaintiff did not file any reply to the aforesaid application despite ample opportunities and vide orer dated 09.09.2014 one last and final opportunity was granted to the plaintiff subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/ to file the reply to the application. However, neither the reply was filed nor the cost CS No. 674/14 Tej Pal Singh Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. 1/6 was paid and accordingly vide order dated 20.11.2014 the opportunity given to the plaintiff to file the reply and argue on the application was closed.
2. I heard arguments on behalf of the defendant and perused the record.
3. As per record the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction before the Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge on 19.03.2004 which was assigned to the Court of Ld. Civil Judge for the same date. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply of the plaintiff in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. 322021206097 installed at premises no. A96, Group Industrial Area, Wazir Pur Industrial Area, New Delhi. Defendant contested the suit by filling written statement. Vide order dated 01.12.2014 in view of the judgment Sarjivan Singh v. Delhi Vidyut Board 110 (2004) TLT 633, plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorum Court fee on the bill amount of Rs. 6,41,536.04/. On failure of the plaintiff to pay the court fee, vide order dated 13.10.2005 the CS No. 674/14 Tej Pal Singh Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. 2/6 plaint was rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The case file was taken up on 10.11.2005 on an application Under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff. Another application Under Order 6 Rule 17 along with amended plaint for declaration and permanent injunction was also moved on the same day by the plaintiff. Vide order dated 11.11.2005, the application Under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC was dismissed as withdrawn as the plaintiff moved another application Under Order 47 CPC, seeking review of order dated 13.10.2005 whereby the plaint was rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The defendant contested the said review application by filing the reply to the same. Vide order dated 08.04.2009, the review application was allowed by the Ld. Civil Judge and the plaintiff was directed to pay proper court fees. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.11.2009 the plaint was returned Under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC as it exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. Civil Judge. It is note worthy that the plaintiff did not press the application Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved earlier and there is no order allowing the amendment prayed by the plaintiff.
CS No. 674/14 Tej Pal Singh Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. 3/6
4. Record further shows that after 25.11.2009, plaintiff filed the said amended plaint for declaration and permanent injunction on 05.07.2010. The defendant filed written statement taking preliminary objections Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Under Section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003. Subsequently the application Under Order 7 Rule 6, 10 and 11 CPC was moved on 16.11.2011 by the defendant stating interalia that the plaint returned Under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on 25.11.2009 has been refiled by the plaintiff only on 05.07.2010 after a period of more than 7 months without the necessary pleadings mandated Under Order 7 Rule 6 CPC, and therefore, suit is barred by limitation. In support of his contentions counsel for the Defendant relied on Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu (1959) 61 BOMLR 531, Huda & Anr. v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar & Anr Appeal (civil) 7522 of 2004, Rikhab Dass v. Smt. Chandro & Ors. AIR 1971 AII 234 and J. Venkatraana Reddy v. Kanakagri Bhakthavatsalaiah 2202 (6) ALD 402, 2003 (4) ALT 16, I (2004) BC 22.
5. Having heard the submissions and perusal of the record I find CS No. 674/14 Tej Pal Singh Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. 4/6 merit in the contention of counsel for the defendant.
6. In the aforementioned circumstances it is more than obvious that the plaintiff filed and proceeded with the present suit in the most casual manner. After return of the plaint on 25.11.2009 the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration as well as permanent injunction with regard to the inspection report dated 17.01.2003, show cause notice dated 22.01.2003 and impugned bill for a sum of Rs. 6,41,536.04/ raised against K. No. 322021206097 situated at A96 Group Industrial Area, Wazir Pur Industrial Area, New Delhi.
7. It is noted that initially the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction only. There is no order by which the application Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff was allowed and amended plaint filed along with it was taken on record. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction mischievously. The perusal of the plaint also show that the there is no pleading at all in this regard. There is not a whisper about the plea of limitation in the entire plaint. Even in para 24 of the plaint i.e. CS No. 674/14 Tej Pal Singh Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. 5/6 the cause of action para, there is no mention about any of the aforementioned facts and circumstances.
8. Similarly, there is no fact averred why after return of the plaint on 25.11.2009, the same was not filed before the appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction immediately or why so much delay was caused in filing the present suit mischievously on 05.07.2010.
9. I am in complete agreement with the contentions of the counsel for the defendant with regard to bar of limitation in filing the present suit. Section 2 Subsection 7 of The Limitation Act, 1963 stipulate the "good faith" whereby nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and caution. Further Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 speaks about the exclusion of time of proceedings bonafide in Court without jurisdiction whereby only the period during which the plaintiff prosecuted the suit bonafide in a wrong Court with due diligence is liable to be excluded. As was laid down in J. Venkataramna Reddy (Supra Case), the period from the date of return of the plaint CS No. 674/14 Tej Pal Singh Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. 6/6 by the wrong Court till the date of presentation to the proper care cannot be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation nor the Court which return the plaint has any power to grant time. As observed earlier, the plaintiff did not mention any fact to indicate that he was prosecuting the earlier suit "with due diligence" as required Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 rather the suit was prosecuted in the most causal manner which is amplified by the fact that the plaintiff did not bother to pay the cost and to contest the application under consideration.
10.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find merit in the contentions of counsel for the defendant. The application Under Order 7 Rule 6, 10 and 11 CPC moved on behalf of the defendant is allowed. The plaint is rejected being barred by limitation.
The application is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to Records.
Announced in the Open Court
CS No. 674/14 Tej Pal Singh Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. 7/6
Dated: 13.12.2014 (Kuldeep Narayan)
ADJ18/Central/Delhi/06.12.2014
CS No. 674/14 Tej Pal Singh Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. 8/6