Ishpal Singh v. Sunil Kumar Tandon

1. In CM(M)775/2019,the order on the leave to defend is challenged on the ground that an unreasonable condition has been imposed by following the judgment in Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturing v. Basic EquipmentCorporation,1976(4)SCC687which stands overruled inIDBI Trusteeship ServicesLimited v.Hubtown Limited,2017(1)SCC568.

2. In CM(M)1601/2019,the right to file the written statement has been 2020:DHC:3872 M closed as the same has not been filed despite opportunities being available, postthe decision in the leave to defend application.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the condition imposed for grant of leave to defend was challenged before this court and hence the Defendant did not file the written statement.

4. The non-filing of written statement after the order on the leave to defend apphcation, though under challenge here, would not permit the Defendantto continue to delay the filing ofthe written statement,especially when there was no stay ofthe impugned order.

5. Aftersome hearing,Id.counsel appearingforthe Petitioner/Defendant submits that his client is willing to comply with the condition ofdeposit of Rs.[1] lakh within four weeks.

6. Accordingly, it is directed that subject to the said condition ofRs.l lakh being deposited within four weeks,the written statement shall be filed before the Trial Court on or before 15'*^ February,2020.The amount ofRs.l lakh to be deposited in the Trial Court shall be kept in an interest-bearing ^ fixed deposit on auto renewal mode and shall abide by the final decision in the suit. Ifthe amount ofRs.l lakh is not deposited within four weeks,the rightto file the written statementshall stand automatically closed.

7. Both the petitions are disposed of in these terms. All pending applications are also disposed of. ^ i PRATHIBA M.SINGH,J JANUARY 06,2020 (^uxhul^