Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in extending time for compliance under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration of the tenant's alleged default and the first date of hearing.
Analysis: Order XV Rule 5 is intended to secure deposit of admitted rent during the pendency of a suit, but the power to strike off the defence is not to be exercised mechanically. The Court reiterated that the consequence is penal in nature and must be applied only after examining the relevant facts, including whether there has been compliance or substantial compliance, whether the default is wilful or bona fide, and what constitutes the first date of hearing. The Court also noted that procedural rules are meant to advance justice and not defeat it. On the record, the foundational aspects for invoking the rule had not been adequately examined by the courts below, while the High Court's later indulgence did not properly reconcile with its earlier conditional order.
Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision on the application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC after determining the first date of hearing and considering compliance, substantial compliance, and the nature of any default.