Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kumar Medical Agencies vs Smt. Nirmal And Ors. on 12 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)106PLR154
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
ORDER H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order of Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh, dated March 13,1992, whereby the defence of the petitioner has been struck off on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as it did not deposit the admitted rent before persuing the suit. The Court held that despite the fact that the application had been moved by the respondent on January 6, 1992, to the effect that the rent be deposited in terms of the amendment in Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code vide Notification dated May 13, 1991, yet the petitioner ignored the application and did not make the deposit.
2. Mr. Ranjit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Supreme Court in Bimal Chand Jain v. Gopal Agarwal, AIR 1981 S.C. 1657, has held that the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure leave a discretion with the Court to order, or not to order the striking off the defence in the facts and circumstances of each case. He has urged that from the record of the trial court, it appeared as if the Court was of the view that as the rent had not been deposited, the defence of the petitioner was ipso-facts to be struck off.
3. Mr. Rajiv Bhalla, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, urged that it was clear that the petitioner had committed default despite having been informed that the rent was required to be deposited under the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code, but despite this, the needful was not done.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to succeed. The Supreme Court in the cited case has held that the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code are not to be mechanically applied as the striking off the defence can have very serious consequence for the defendants. It has been observed that the word "may" in sub-rule (1) merely vests a power in the Court to strike off the defence. It appears to me that the trial Court was of the view that as soon as the deposit under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code was not made, and a default had been committed by a defendant, his defence was liable to be struck off on that count. This, as already indicated above, is not the interpretation that is to be put on the provisions impugned.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed, the order dated March 13, 1992, is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits the entire arrears of rent up to November 1993, within a period of one month from today. As the matter pertains to the year 1984, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of four months from today. No costs. Parties to appear before the trial Court on November 16,1993.