A suit can be dismissed for non-compliance of an order to file an amended plaint.

$~3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 4^th January, 2022

+

C.R.P. 60/2020, CM APPLs. 22672/2020 & 22674/2020

THARVINDER SINGH & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Prashant Diwan, Advocate.

versus

VIRESH CHOPRA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Akash Tomar, Advocate.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. In

the

present

revision

petition,

the

Petitioners/Defendants

(hereinafter “Defendants”) have challenged the impugned order dated 28^th

July, 2020 by which the application of the Respondents/Plaintiffs

(hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been allowed

and the application of the Defendants under proviso to Order VII Rule 11

CPC was dismissed in CS No.610018/16 titled Viresh Chopra & Ors. v.

Tharvinder Singh & Ors.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Plaintiffs were directed to file the

amended plaint, on the next date of hearing or within 15 days upon

resumption of normal hearing, whichever was later.

4. In the present revision petition, the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs seeks

an adjournment today on the ground that the main counsel is not available. It

is seen from the record that since inception, after notice was issued in this

matter, the Plaintiffs have failed to appear before this Court. Service was

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000089

also effected in the matter and on 11^th October, 2021, the Registrar records

that both the Plaintiffs are well aware of the proceedings, they have been

duly served, and they have chosen not to appear before the Court. On 8^th

November, 2021, Mr. Tomar, ld. Counsel appeared for the Plaintiffs and

submitted that he would be filing his vakalatnama in respect of the

Plaintiff’s legal heirs, i.e., Respondent Nos.2A, 2B & 2C, however, till date

the vakalatnama has not been filed. He appears again today and seeks

further time to file the vakalatnama.

5. In the meantime, Mr. Diwan, ld. Counsel for the Defendants, submits

that the suit itself has been dismissed in default as per the order of the Trial

Court dated 22^nd March, 2021. A copy of the said order has been emailed to

the Court Master.

6. This Court has perused the said order and the record of the suit before

the Trial Court. A background of these proceedings is as below.

7.

Vide the Trial Court’s order dated 14^th September, 2018, the

application filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was

disposed of. One of the grounds in the said application seeking rejection of

the plaint was on account of deficiency in payment of the Court fees by the

Plaintiffs. The Trial Court in this order, had directed the Plaintiffs to pay the

deficient Court fees in the following terms:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000089

which consequential order shall follow.”

8.

On 3^rd December, 2018, the Trial Court noticed that the Court fee was

not paid by the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs had filed an application under

Section 148 CPC seeking extension of time in depositing the said fees. The

said application under Section 148 CPC was dismissed as withdrawn. On the

same very date, the Plaintiffs were permitted to move an application seeking

amendment of the plaint. The said application filed by the Plaintiffs under

Order VI Rule 17 CPC, alongwith an application under proviso to Order VII

Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendants were again considered by the Trial

Court, and decided in the impugned order dated 28^th July, 2020.

9. Vide the said order, the amendment of the plaint was allowed and the

application of the Defendants under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC,

which had sought rejection of the plaint due to non-compliance of the order

dated 14^th September, 2018, was dismissed. This order dated 28^th July, 2020

is under challenge before this Court today. The impugned order r