Defiant conduct of litigants cannot be encouraged, and respectful conduct to the court is essential for receiving judicial discretion and sympathy.

J. P. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against order dated 2. 7. 2005 passed by civil Judge, Delhi dismissing an application under Section 151 CPC of the petitioner- defendant for taking his written statement on record and for setting aside the order dated 21. 3. 2005 striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant.

( 2 ) I have heard the parties in person. Earlier i had heard the learned counsel for the parties as well.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondent (herein after referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession and recovery, damages/ mesne profits against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in may, 2003 alleging that she was the owner of the flat No. 26, Jaina Apartment, Plot No. 26, sector-13, Rohini, Delhi and had let the same on 8. 5. 1995 to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1400/- besides Rs. 200/- as maintenance charges of the Housing Society. Electricity and water charges were to be paid by the defendant as per bills to the concerned authorities. In August, 1996 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1700/- and again it was enhanced to Rs. 2500/- in 1997. The other charges remained the same. The defendant stopped paying rent w. e. f. 8. 3. 1998. Notice was served upon him. The defendant was stated to be in arrears w. e. f. 8. 3. 1998. The litigation started before the Rent Controller. The defendant objected that the petition was not maintainable under the Delhi Rent Control act because the relationship was of lessor and lessee. Therefore the owner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of rs. 79,400/ -. On 5. 2. 2004 the defendant was proceeded ex parte. Ex parte evidence was recorded and judgment was passed on 27. 7. 2004 for recovery of possession and recovery of rent @ Rs. 1700/- per month w. e. f. 7. 4. 2003, Rs. 200/- as maintenance charges for Housing society and Rs. 700/- per month for water and electricity charges. The suit was decreed with costs.

( 4 ) ON 18. 10. 2004 the defendant moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. Efforts for compromise were made but failed. On 4. 1. 2005 the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was allowed and the matter was fixed for filing written statement/reply on 8. 2. 2005. Written statement was not filed. On 9. 3. 2005 further time was granted to file written statement within one week and the matter was fixed for admission-denial. But written statement was presented only on 21. 3. 2d05, which was objected to by learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the written statement was to be filed within one week from 9. 3. 2005 and that the defence be struck off and in view of the provisions of Order VIII rule 1 CPC the learned Civil Judge opined that the defendant had not explained the circumstances which prevented him from filing the written statement within the prescribed period and declined to take the written statement on record and struck off the defence of the defendant. Instead of challenging that order an application under section 151 CPC was moved on behalf on the defendant on 13. 5. 2005 for setting aside the order dated 21. 3. 2005 which was dismissed on 2. 7. 2005. Again there was a talk of compromise but without any fruitful results. Defendant again stopped appearing in the court and was proceeded ex parte on 3. 9. 2005 and the matter was adjourned to 15. 10. 2005 apparently because the defendant did not bother to convey to the trial court that proceedings had been stayed by the High Court on 2. 9. 2005. An application for setting aside the ex-parte order is pending in the trial court. Now order dated 2. 7. 2005 has been challenged but behind it in fact time barred order dated 21. 3. 2005 is being challenged.

( 5 ) I have given the progress of the case in the trial court in some detail with the specific purpose of examining the conduct of the defendant in the trial court. P