The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of finality of court orders, the limited grounds for recall of a judgment, and the need for continuity, certainty, and predictability in the administration of justice.

CM No.32043/2017 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 955/2017 & CM No.32042/2017 (for stay)

3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 23rd May, 2017 in CS No.771/16/15 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-03, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] allowing the application of the respondents/defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recall of the order striking off the defence of the respondents/defendants.

4. The counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has been heard and record perused.

5. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted the suit, from which this petition arises, for recovery of possession and for recovery of Rs.1,20,000/- towards mesne profits and for permanent and mandatory injunction inter alia pleading that the respondent/defendant No.1 was a tenant under the petitioner/plaintiff at a rent of Rs.15,000/- per month and the term for which the premises were let out to the respondent/defendant No.1 had expired but the respondent/defendant No.1 was not vacating the premises and the respondent/defendant No.2 Ashma Khatoon, who is the wife of the respondent/defendant No.1, by claiming to be the owner of the property, was attempting to sell the same.

6. Summons of the said suit were ordered to be issued on 31st August, 2015 for 16th September, 2015. The respondents/defendants were served on 6th September, 2015 and appeared before the Court on 16th September, 2015 and sought time to file written statement and the suit was adjourned to 15th October, 2015 for filing of written statement. On 15th October, 2015, again time was sought for filing written statement and was granted subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- and the suit listed on 18th November, 2015 for written statement and payment of costs. On 18th November, 2015, the suit was adjourned to 19th November, 2015. On 19th November, 2015, though written statement was filed but costs not paid and an application for waiving the costs filed.

7. However, the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff pointed out that the date on the affidavit accompanying the written statement and the date of attestation were different and thus the affidavit was not as per the law.

8. The application for waiver of costs was dismissed and finding, that the written statement filed was not in terms of law, the defence of the respondents/defendants was struck off and the petitioner/plaintiff asked to lead evidence on 19th December, 2015.

9. On 19th December, 2015, an application for review was filed by the respondents/defendants and vide detailed order dated 11th February, 2016, the said application was dismissed and the suit posted on 18th March, 2016, again for petitioner/plaintiff’s evidence.

10. There was a change in the Presiding Judge at that stage and before the new Judge, though none appeared for the respondents/defendants on 2nd November, 2016 and the defence of the respondents/defendants also stood struck off but court notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents/defendants.

11. The respondents/defendants appeared on 14th February, 2017 and sought adjournment and which was readily granted and the suit adjourned to 23rd May, 2017 for the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff.

12. At that stage, the respondents/defendants filed the application, though recorded in the order as under Section 151 of CPC but under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC and which application has been allowed vide impugned order dated 23rd May, 2017. The reason given is that the written statement earlier filed on 19th November, 2015 was not taken on record owing to technical reasons and the suit should be permitted to be decided on merits. The respondents/defendants were accordingly permitted to file fresh written statement within one week and were burdened with costs of Rs.25,000/- and the suit adjourned to 30th May, 2017.

13. On 30th May, 2017, the following order was passed:

“Present: Sh. Sunny