Vijay Kumar v. Farmuda Begum

1. Petitioner impugns the order dated 16.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge in CS/SCJ/2430/2021.

2. Respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages, mesne profits and permanent injunction. Petitioner herein is the defendant in the civil suit.

3. Trial Court allowed the application of the respondent under Order 15-A CPC vide order dated 04.12.2023 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 21,600/- to the respondent towards arrears of rent for 27 months and to further continue depositing Rs. 800/- per month till the pendency of the suit or till the handing over of the possession.

4. Petitioner was granted one month’s time to deposit the said amount in the shape of an FDR before the court.

5. Admittedly, petitioner did not comply with the order dated 04.12.2023, and therefore, there being no other option, the defence of the respondent was struck off vide order dated 16.05.2024. It is this part of the order dated 16.05.2024, which has been challenged in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner had been appearing on each and every date of hearing but his Advocate was not regular and even on the dates when he appeared, he asked for adjournment on one or the other ground. It is submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate person, living in a jhuggi and should not be allowed to suffer due to unprofessional conduct of his Advocate.

7. It may be seen that there is no challenge on the merits of the impugned order dated 16.05.2024. Petitioner has put entire blame on his previous Advocate. Every litigant who appears in court, needs to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be vigilant in the judicial proceedings pending in court. Litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It has become a tendency to put entire blame upon the previous Advocate just trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings. Such an argument therefore cannot be accepted. In the case of Hameed Joharan vs. Abdul Salam; (2001) 7 SCC 573, following pertinent observations have been made:- “....... It cannot but be the general policy of our law to use the legal diligence and this has been the consistent legal theory from the ancient times: even the doctrine of prescription in Roman law prescribes such a concept of legal diligence and since its incorporation therein, the doctrine has always been favoured rather than claiming disfavour. Law courts never tolerate an indolent litigant since delay defeats equity - the Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are indolent). As a matter of fact, lapse of time is a species for forfeiture of rights....”

8. It was the duty of the petitioner to either challenge the order dated 04.12.2023 passed under Order 15-A CPC before the superior court or to comply with the same. Since the petitioner had not made the payment in terms of order dated 04.12.2023, the trial court had no option except to strike off the defence of the petitioner. By putting blame on the counsel, petitioner cannot escape from his liability as also the consequences.

9. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the petition.

10. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. DECEMBER 6, 2024