Non-compliance with court orders for amendment and court fees deposit can lead to dismissal of the suit for default and non-prosecution.

ORDER

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. In the present revision petition, the Petitioners/Defendants (hereinafter "Defendants ") have challenged the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020 by which the application of the Respondents/Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been allowed and the application of the Defendants under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed in CS No.610018/16 titled Viresh Chopra & Ors. v. Tharvinder Singh & Ors.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Plaintiffs were directed to file the amended plaint, on the next date of hearing or within 15 days upon resumption of normal hearing, whichever was later.

4. In the present revision petition, the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs seeks an adjournment today on the ground that the main counsel is not available. It is seen from the record that since inception, after notice was issued in this matter, the Plaintiffs have failed to appear before this Court. Service was also effected in the matter and on 11th October, 2021, the Registrar records that both the Plaintiffs are well aware of the proceedings, they have been duly served, and they have chosen not to appear before the Court. On 8th November, 2021, Mr. Tomar, ld. Counsel appeared for the Plaintiffs and submitted that he would be filing his vakalatnama in respect of the Plaintiffs legal heirs, i.e., Respondent Nos.2A, 2B & 2C, however, till date the vakalatnama has not been filed. He appears again today and seeks further time to file the vakalatnama.

5. In the meantime, Mr. Diwan, ld. Counsel for the Defendants, submits that the suit itself has been dismissed in default as per the order of the Trial Court dated 22nd March, 2021. A copy of the said order has been emailed to the Court Master.

6. This Court has perused the said order and the record of the suit before the Trial Court. A background of these proceedings is as below.

7. Vide the Trial Court's order dated 14th September, 2018, the application filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was disposed of. One of the grounds in the said application seeking rejection of the plaint was on account of deficiency in payment of the Court fees by the Plaintiffs. The Trial Court in this order, had directed the Plaintiffs to pay the deficient Court fees in the following terms:

"23. The plaint filed by the plaintiff cannot be rejected on the ground of deficient court fees, however an opportunity is being provided to the plaintiff to pay the balance deficient court fees on the amount of Rs. 1.75 Crore after making the adjustment of the court fee already filed with in a period of six weeks. 24. The application under Order VII rule 11CPC filed by defendant is disposed of with the direction to the plaintiff to pay the court fees in terms of paragraph no.23 of the order failing which consequential order shall follow. "

8. On 3rd December, 2018, the Trial Court noticed that the Court fee was not paid by the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 148 CPC seeking extension of time in depositing the said fees. The said application under Section 148 CPC was dismissed as withdrawn. On the same very date, the Plaintiffs were permitted to move an application seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application filed by the Plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, alongwith an application under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendants were again considered by the Trial Court, and decided in the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020.

9. Vide the said order, the amendment of the plaint was allowed and the application of the Defendants under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which had sought rejection of the plaint due to non-compliance of the order dated 14th September, 2018, was dismissed. This order dated 28th July, 2020 is under challenge before this Court today. The impugned order reads as under:

"12. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendants, si