J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the ADJ-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in Misc. DJ No. 119/2020 and order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Trial Court in Misc. DJ No. 174/2021.

1.1. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.03.2020 (1st order) dismissed the Petitioner’s application (i.e., Misc. DJ No. 119/2020) filed under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking restoration of three applications i.e., MA Nos. 2/2009, 20/2009 and 25/2009, as well as Misc. Appl. No. 61125/2016.

The Petitioner’s said Misc. Appl. No. 61125/2016 along with three applications i.e., MA Nos. 2/2009, 20/2009 and 25/2009 were dismissed in default by the Trial Court on 14.08.2018 for non-prosecution.

1.2. The Trial Court subsequently, vide impugned order dated 18.08.2023 (2nd order) dismissed the review application filed by the Petitioner under Section 114 of CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, against the 1st order dated 11.03.2020.

2. The Petitioner on the last date of hearing before this Court i.e., on 17.11.2023, submitted that the facts of this case are self-explanatory and order on this petition may be passed after perusal of the paper book.

3. This Court has perused this paper book and the facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are as under:

3.1. A civil suit (CS No. 37/2008) was filed by the Respondent (i.e., the plaintiff) against the Petitioner (i.e., the defendant) and three police officers, seeking permanent injunction w.r.t property bearing No. B-15, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi – 110091 (‘suit property’). The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 25.10.2008.

3.2. Though, the suit was decreed on 25.10.2008, the Petitioner herein subsequently, filed three applications (‘concerned applications’) i.e., i. MA No. 2/2009 (for correction of an order dated 08.11.2005)

ii. MA No. 20/2009 (filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.)

iii. MA No. 25/2009 (filed under Section 151 of CPC for correction of judgment dated 25.10.2008 passed in the civil suit)

3.3. The record evidences that the said concerned applications were dismissed in default by the Trial Court on three (3) separate occasions for non-prosecution. A perusal of the paper book shows that between 10.03.2010 (the first default) and 18.08.2023 (the 2nd impugned order), the concerned applications have not been argued on merit by the Petitioner till date. The Petitioner consistently defaulted in addressing arguments on merits and thereafter, resisted adjournments granted by the Trial Court subject to costs.

3.4. A perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner has kept the Trial Court entangled in the said proceedings which led to passing of orders of default dated 10.03.2010, 03.03.2011 and 21.08.2012 against the Petitioner herein.

3.5. This Court however, vide order dated 05.05.2014 passed in CM(M) No. 11/2013 set aside the default orders, restored the concerned applications and gave an opportunity to the Petitioner herein to address arguments on the said applications subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/- (‘costs imposed by this Court’).

3.6. It is a matter of record that the Petitioner failed to pay the said costs imposed by this Court, despite filing an SLP against the said costs, which was dismissed as withdrawn; as well as a review petition before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2014.

A diligent litigant at this stage would have paid the costs of Rs.

2,500/-

3.7. The Petitioner however, to subvert the process, approached the Trial Court for waiver of costs imposed by this Court. In the opinion of this Court, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application seeking waiver of costs vide order dated 03.12.2015. The Petitioner however, undeterred filed an application before the Trial Court for recall of the said order dated 03.12.2015 which again was again dismis