IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Bela Creation Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Jai Durga Traders Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
RFA(COMM) 80 of 2022 and CM APPL. 45603 of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2024
Dismissal - Conditional Leave to Defend - The court dismissed the appeal against the order granting conditional leave to defend the suit action, as a final judgment and decree had been passed in the meantime, and the appeal against it was dismissed as withdrawn. The court found that nothing survived in the appeal due to the circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant failed to deposit the required sum as ordered by the court, and subsequently sought permission to deposit the money, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The appeal was directed against the order granting conditional leave to defend the suit action, but a final judgment and decree had been passed in the meantime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that nothing survived in the appeal due to the circumstances, and dismissed the appeal as there were no good reasons to entertain it.
Issues: Failure to deposit the required sum, appeal against conditional leave to defend, final judgment and decree, withdrawal of appeal, and reasons to entertain the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that nothing survived in the appeal due to the circumstances, and found no good reasons to entertain the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the pending application was closed.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
1. On the previous date i.e., 10.01.2024 we had heard the matter at length.
2. The record shows that notice was issued in the appeal by the coordinate bench on 19.10.2022.
2.1. On the said date, the coordinate bench stayed the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2022 whereby conditional leave to defend was granted, subject to the appellant depositing Rs.15 lakhs with the Registrar General of this court within six (06) weeks.
3. It is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant that the said sum has not been deposited by the appellant.
3.1. It is in this context that nearly one year and three months later, an application was moved seeking permission to deposit the money.
3.2. This application came up before the court on 10.01.2024 when, it was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. However, insofar as the appeal was concerned, the following was observed by the Court on 10.01.2024:
"3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.02.2022, which granted conditional leave to defend the suit action. It is not in dispute that in the meantime a final judgment and decree dated 24.05.2022 has been passed.
4. It is also not in dispute that the appeal preferred against the final judgment and decree, was dismissed as withdrawn by the coordinate bench.
5. According to us, in the given circumstances, nothing survives in the present appeal. Since Ms Aggarwal seeks accommodation on the ground that in the usual course the appeal is fixed for 07.02.2024, list the appeal on the said date."
5. Having regard to the fact that pending the above-captioned appeal a final judgment was rendered by the trial court, against which an appeal was preferred which was withdrawn by the appellant, according to us, nothing survives in the instant appeal as was noted on 10.01.2024.
6. The only reason the appeal was kept back on 10.01.2024 was on the insistence of the learned senior counsel appearing for appellant on that date that only the application for extension of time to deposit the money (as ordered by the court on 19.10.2022) had been listed, and not the appeal.
6.1. Accordingly, the appeal, as requested, was stood over to the date already fixed i.e., today [07.02.2024].
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. We find no good reasons to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
9. Consequently, pending application shall stand closed.
The court found that due to the circumstances, nothing survived in the appeal and there were no good reasons to entertain it, leading to its dismissal.
The court upheld that failure to comply with the deposit requirement negated the appellant's claims of fraud regarding the cheques, justifying the trial court's decree in favor of the respondent.
The court may consider the financial incapacity of a party and the interest of justice in directing the deposit of a specified amount to contest a suit.
Failure to comply with court orders leads to dismissal of the petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of the court is circumscribed under Rule 5(5) of Order 41 C.P.C., and non-compliance with the direction of the court under Order 41 ....
A party may file a subsequent application even after an earlier application is dismissed for technical reasons, provided the underlying obligations remain.
The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should not take a hyper-technical approach and should consider appeals on their merits, especially when the petitioner was ready with the required amount on the....
Failure to comply with court ordered deposit justifies dismissal of the original petition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.