Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
ANJU @ ANJU BALA – Appellant
Versus
RAMPAL – Respondent
CS(OS) 1159/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal, Mr. B. N. Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Mr. Ujjwal Jha, Mr. Anirudh Singh, Mr. Rohan Gupta
The court can condone delays in compliance with conditional orders under the CPC if sufficient cause is demonstrated, emphasizing justice over procedural rigidity.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXVII - Applications for condonation of delay - Conditional leave to defend was granted to the defendant, subject to deposit of Rs. 4 crores - The amount was modified by the Division Bench to Rs. 1.20 crores - Later, the defendant sought condonation for a delay in compliance due to challenges in higher courts - The court must balance procedural expedience with justice, permitting condonation when sufficient cause is shown. (Paras 1-4, 11-12, 45-51)
(B) Judicial discretion - The court's inherent power under Section 151 of CPC allows for extensions beyond stated limits where justifiable circumstances arise - Rigid adherence to deadlines must not override substantive justice (Paras 26-30, 41-50).
(C) Legal heir's rights - The court confirmed that the plaintiffs, as legal heirs, have rightful claims and that prompt execution of such rights must be assured by the court. (Paras 1-5, 14-20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs allege misappropriation by defendants. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendant argues for delay condonation due to lawful challenge. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. court's interpretation of procedural norms under cpc. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. outcome of previous appeals affects current case. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. court condones delay; emphasizes justice over procedure. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
The instant applications have been filed by defendant No.1 seeking condonation of delay in compliance with orders dated 11.10.2023 and 12.03.2024, whereby defendant No.1 was granted conditional leave to defend and was directed to furnish a security of Rs 1.20 crores.
2. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs, Anju @ Anju Bala, widow of late Mr. Hari Om Rana, and her minor daughter Bharti Rana. The plaintiffs allege that after the death of late Mr. Hari Om Rana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) on 07.10.2008, defendant No.1, namely, Mr. Rampal, father of the deceased and father- in- law of plaintiff no. 1 herein and, officials of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant-Bank’), conspired to suppress and misappropriate the deceased’s bank accounts, fixed deposits, and related documents. It is further averred that defendant No.1, along with others, wrongfully confined plaintiff No.1 for over six months and during that period, illegally removed papers pertaining to both movable and immovable properties of the deceased.
3. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the deceased had deposited the proceeds of the sale of land, amounting to approximately Rs. 3.5 crores, in his accounts with the defendant-Bank. As per the case set up by the plaintiffs, despite repeated inquiries and earlier suits for mandatory injunction compelling disclosure, the defendant-Bank initially denied existence of accounts, but subsequent disclosures revealed irregularities, fraudulent nominations, and misappropriation of funds, including premature encashment of an FDR amounting to Rs. 1,12,19,339/- by defendant No. 1, as well as the failure to return substantial loan amounts advanced by the deceased.
4. It is further the plaintiffs’ case that the deceased had advanced a total loan of Rs. 1.86 crores to defendant No. 1, of which only Rs. 50 lakhs along with interest of Rs. 5 lakh was repaid during his lifetime, leaving Rs. 1.36 crores unpaid, along with accrued interest. Additionally, it is averred that an FDR of Rs. 1 crore created by the deceased got matured and was fraudulently encashed after his death through a false nomination in favor of defendant No. 1.
5. The plaintiffs contend that being the legal heirs of the deceased, they are rightful claimants of the said amounts, which have been wrongfully misappropriated by the defendants. The total claim amounts to Rs. 4 crores as on the date of filing, inclusive of principal and interest.
6. The plaintiffs, therefore, seek a decree for the said sum against defendant No. 1, along with pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum, costs of the suit, and other reliefs deemed fit by the Court.
Proceedings before the Court
7. The present suit has been instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) and vide order dated 11.04.2019, conditional leave to defend was granted to defendant No. 1, subject to the deposit of Rs. 4 crores. The aforenoted order was assailed by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, vide judgment dated 11.10.2023, passed in FAO (OS) 103/2019, modified the said condition by reducing the security amount to Rs. 1.20 crores, to be furnished within a period of six weeks before the Registrar General of this Court.
8. Subsequent thereto, defendant No. 1 preferred a Special Leave Petition bearing No. 26488/2023 before t
