LexBAL GOPAL MAHESHWARI & ORS versus SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 283 BAL GOPAL MAHESHWARI & ORS .. v. SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA (Civil Appeal No. 7279 of 2013) AUGUST 30, 2013 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: A B c 0. 15, r. 5 - Striking off the defence - Suit for eviction on ground for default in payment of rent - Tenant filing written statement belatedly - Application by land-lord for striking off the defence as defendant failed to deposit the rent even after receipt of notice - Allowed by trial court and revisional court 0 - Order set aside .by High Court in a petition under Art. 227 of Constitution - Held: Trial court fully applied its mind while exercising its discretionary power to strike off the defence - Revisional court noticed the grounds and, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, affirmed the order - Order passed by E courts below were not perverse nor had they exceeded their jurisdiction - Therefore, it was not open to High Court to sit in appeal under Art. 227 of the Constitution to alter such findings of fact and to accept the written statement without any ground "-Judgment of High Court is set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.227. F The appellant filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit premises, viz. a shop, for default in payment of rent and for arrears thereof. The defendant belatedly filed the written statement and did G not deposit the rent on the first date of hearing, The application filed by the plaintiff under 0.15, r.5 CPC for striking off the defence was allowed. The revision of the tenant was dismissed. However, the High Court in the 28~ H 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C'.R. A petition filed by the tenant under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, set aside the orders of both the courts below. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, both the courts below noticed several defaults committed by the respondent in depositing the rnonthly rent. The trial court fully applied its mind while exercising its discretionary power to strike off the defence. The revisional court noticed the grounds c and, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, affirmed the order passed by the trial court. The power to strike off the written statement vested under r.5 of 0. 15, CPC was exercised by the lower courts after going through the facts of the case. [Paras 10 and 15] [288-E; 293-H; 294- D A-BJ E Smt. Satya Kumari Kamthan v. Noor Ahmed and Others 1992 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 82 (SC); Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal 1982 (1) SCR 124 = (1981) 3 SCC 486 - relied on Mangat Singh Trifochan Singh v. Satpal 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 54 = (2003) 8 SCC 357 - referred to 1.2. The High Court failed to give any ground while exercising its inherent power under Art. 227 of the F Constitution of India, but merely observed that the Supreme Court has held that the Court has jurisdiction and discretion to accept the written statement even after expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons on payment of heavy cost. The defendant has neither G cited any decision nor has he shown any ground for acceptance of written statement even after expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons on payment of heavy cost. The order passed by the trial court by exercising its discretionary power and the order passed H by the revisional court affirming the trial court order were BAL GOPAL MAHESHWARI v. SANJEEV KUMAR 285 GUPTA not perverse and both the courts below have not A exceeded their jurisdiction. Therefore, it was not open to the High Court to sit in appeal under Art. 227 of the Constitution to alter such finding of facts and to accept the written statement without any ground. The judgment passed by the High Court is set aside. [Para 16-17] [294- B C-G] Case Law Reference: 1982 (1) SCR 124 relied on Para 12 1992 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 82 (SC) relied on Para 13 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 54 referred to Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7279 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .09.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44387 of 2007. Anis Ahmed Khan for the Appeilants. D.N. Goburdhan, Rakesh Mittal, Prabal Begche for the Respondent. c D E F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.