$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 23^rd February, 2026 + CM(M) 422/2026 GITANJALI ARORA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shadman Ahmed Siddiqui, Mr.

Kartik Pandey and Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocates (through VC).

versus PARITOSH CHANDIOK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rishi Manchand and Mr.

Siddharth Mullick, Advocates (through VC).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

ORDER (Oral)

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 12193/2026 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 422/2026, CM APPL. 12191/2026 & CM APPL. 12192/2026

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 27^th January, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in Civ Suit 8195/16 (old no. 176/2013), whereby the application of the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking recall of the order dated 24^th December, 2022, has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

5. The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main issue urged before this Court is to recall the order dated 24^th December, 2022, whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off. The defence had been struck off on account of non-payment of occupation charges. The delay in moving the application under Section 151 CPC is owed to the old age of the original defendant and on account of his subsequent death, substitution of the Legal Representatives (‘LRs’) of the defendant and absence of complete records of earlier deposits. The petitioners are ready to deposit the entire arrears and to lead evidence in order to avoid any prejudice to the respondent. On these grounds, it is prayed that the order dated 24^th December, 2022 be recalled.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the application has been filed only with a view to delay the trial. The application was moved by the petitioners on 18^th December, 2025 i.e., after a lapse of approx. three (03) years of the order dated 24^th December, 2022. Therefore, it is contended that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as it is without any merit.

8. The relevant portion of the orders dated 24^th December, 2022 reads as follows:

“Submissions heard and record perused carefully which shows that on the last date of hearing, the defendant was directed to file an affidavit stating the total amount paid by him in favour of the plaintiff. However, despite direction, the defendant has failed to do so.

Furthermore, perusal of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM(M) No.290/2020, the defendant was required to pay occupation charges @ Rs.10,000/- per month along with the arrears of such rent within a period of six months from the date of the Order i.e. 23.11.2021. However, although thedefendantisclaimingtobeinpaymentoftheregularmonthly occupation charges, admittedly, he has failed to discharge his liability with respect to the arrears amounting to approximately Rs.10 Lac.

Atthis stage,inordertoshowhis bonafides,thedefendant has further moved an application seeking leave to deposit an amount of Rs.3.5 Lac in discharge of his liability towards the arrears. With respect to the remaining arrears, the defendant has pleaded his inability to arrange the funds at this juncture on accountofhisrepeatedmedicaladmissionsinthehospitaldueto his frail health.

In conclusion, although the defendant's conduct seems to be bonafide and and on account of his personal hardship, he could not arrange the required funds, the wording of the letter of law under Order XVA of the CPC is unambiguous and categorical. Furthermore, this Court has no power to extent the period of such deposit of rent determined by a Superior Court. Still furthe