LAWS(P&H)-1993-10-64

KUMAR MEDICAL AGENCIES Vs. NIRMAL

Decided On October 12, 1993
KUMAR MEDICAL AGENCIES Appellant
V/S
NIRMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh, dated March 13,1992, whereby the defence of the petitioner has been struck off on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as it did not deposit the admitted rent before persuing the suit. The Court held that despite the fact that the application had been moved by the respondent on January 6, 1992, to the effect that the rent be deposited in terms of the amendment in Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code vide Notification dated May 13, 1991, yet the petitioner ignored the application and did not make the deposit.

(2.) MR. Ranjit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Supreme Court in Bimal Chand Jain v. Gopal Agarwal, AIR 1981 S. C. 1657, has held that the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure leave a discretion with the Court to order, or not to order the striking off the defence in the facts and circumstances of each case. He has urged that from the record of the trial court, it appeared as if the Court was of the view that as the rent had not been deposited, the defence of the petitioner was ipso-facts to be struck off.

(3.) MR. Rajiv Bhalla, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, urged that it was clear that the petitioner had committed default despite having been informed that the rent was required to be deposited under the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code, but despite this, the needful was not done.