Restoring Balance: High Court Sets Aside Striking Off of Defence in Petitioner’s Case.


05 July 2024 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court recently addressed a petition (CM (M) 2376/2024) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order from March 1, 2024, that had struck off the defence of the petitioner. The case highlights the court's approach to balancing procedural strictness with the interests of justice.

The initial hearing took place on May 15, 2024, during which the petitioner was directed to serve all respondents through permissible methods, with a return date set for November 8, 2024. In the meantime, the petitioner sought an early hearing, which was agreed upon by both parties, allowing the main matter to be addressed immediately. The crux of the matter revolved around the petitioner’s failure to file an amended written statement and an Affidavit of Income and Assets by the deadlines set by the Trial Court. The Court noted that the petitioner had not complied with multiple directives, leading to the conclusion that there was an intent to delay proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court struck off the petitioner’s defence.

 
 

As the case unfolded, the respondent's counsel acknowledged the belated filing of the written statement but pointed out that they had not yet received a copy. In response, the petitioner’s counsel assured that the necessary documents, including the Affidavit of Income and Assets, would be submitted within a week. After considering the circumstances, the High Court deemed the Trial Court's order excessively harsh. It opined that instead of striking off the defence, a more reasonable approach would have been to impose costs on the petitioner to compensate the plaintiff for any inconvenience caused.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order that had struck off the petitioner’s defence. The petitioner was reinstated to participate fully in the ongoing proceedings. However, to address the delay caused, the court imposed a cost of ?10,000 on the petitioner, which is to be paid to the respondent before the next hearing.

The Court expressed the expectation that the Trial Court would take this development into account when hearing the petitioner’s application for interim maintenance. With this ruling, the High Court not only restored the petitioner’s right to defend but also reinforced the principle that procedural rigor should not override the pursuit of justice.
In a notable turn, the previously scheduled hearing for November 8, 2024, was cancelled, allowing for a more immediate resolution to the case. The order was made effective under the signature of the Court Master, underscoring the court's commitment to facilitating fair and just proceedings.