$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28^th April, 2025 + CM(M) 767/2025, CM APPL. 24955/2025, CM APPL. 24956/2025 &

CM APPL. 24957/2025 BIMLA KAPOOR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta with Mr. Trivesh Sharma, Advocates.

versus SANGITA BHUTANI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Respondents herein have filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages with consequential relief of injunction.

2. When the abovesaid suit was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 30.09.2024, it directed defendants to pay arrears of rent @ Rs.26, 000/- per month to such plaintiffs w.e.f. January, 2021 till date of such order and thereafter, to continue to pay said amount, on monthly basis for future months, till the disposal of the abovesaid suit.

3. Such order was passed by learned Trial Court on the basis of application moved by plaintiffs under Order XV-A CPC.

4. When asked, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants informed that they have not challenged the abvoesaid order, till date.

5. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 18.03.2025, noticing that there was no compliance of the abovesaid order, it struck off the defence of the defendants.

Signature Not Verified CM(M) 767/2025 1 Digitally Signed

6. Such order is under challenge.

7. This Court has perused impugned order dated 18.03.2025 and it is manifestly clear that the defence has been struck off on account of non-compliance of the abovesaid order.

8. There is no doubt that the Court is empowered to strike off the defence but before taking recourse to such extreme step, the Court is mandated to serve a notice upon the defendant or his counsel as to why defence should not be struck off.

9. The grievance in the present petition is limited to the effect that without giving any opportunity of hearing to the defendants/their counsel, the defence has been struck off.

10. The position is no longer res integra and service of such Show Cause Notice is imperative and mandatory, before taking recourse to extreme steps of striking off the defence.

11. Reference, in this regard, be made to Madho Singh Chauhan vs. Smriti and Ors: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1059. Paras 26 to 35 of said judgment read as under:-

“26. This order, dated 24^th September, 2021, passed by the learned ADJ under Order XV-A(2) of the CPC, is in essence to a sequel to the earlier order dated 20^th March, 2021, which forms subject matter of challenge in CM(M) 602/2021 and which stands upheld by me hereinabove.

27. Order XV-A(2), plainly read, requires the court, in a case where there is no compliance, by the defendant, with the order passed under Order XV-A(1), after granting an opportunity to the defendants to explain the lapse in compliance, strike off the defence of the defendants in case the lapse is not properly explained.

Signature Not Verified CM(M) 767/2025 2 Digitally Signed

28. Order XV-A (1) clearly ordains that “in the event of any default in making the deposit as aforesaid, the Court may subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off the defence.”

29. “Sub-rule (2)” of Order XV-A requires the court, before passing an order striking off the defence, to serve notice on the defendant to show cause as to why the defence not be struck off, and thereafter by considering the cause shown, if any, decide as to whether the defendant should be relieved from the order striking off the defence.

30. The provision is worded in clear and unexceptionable terms. It starts with the word “before passing an order striking off the defence”. The statutory scheme is, therefore, unequivocal. The court, confronted with a situation in which the defendant has apparently not complied with the directions under Order XV-A(1), is required, in the first instance, to serve notice on the defendant calling for his explanation as to why there has been non-compliance with Order XV-A(1). The defendant has an opportunity, thereaft