AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Siddharth Mridul, J
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2017, rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) 244/2016, whereby
the plaint filed by the appellants was rejected.
In order to appreciate the import of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, it would be necessary to extract the said impugned order
dated 16.03.2017, which is reproduced hereunder:-
“1. The amount, which the plaintiffs have undertaken on 8th November, 2016 to deposit as a pre-condition for the suit to be entertained, has not
been deposited as yet.
The counsel for the plaintiffs today again seeks adjournment.
Several opportunities have been given to the plaintiffs in this regard. It is evident that the plaintiffs do not want to proceed with the suit.
No further arguments have been addressed by the counsel for the plaintiffs.
The plaint is rejected.
The plaintiffs if files a fresh suit to therewith file a copy of the orders dated 8th November, 2016, 16th December, 2016, 19th January, 2017 and
27th February, 2017 and today’s order.â€
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the plaint ought not to have been rejected since
none of the conditions, as stipulated in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) were attracted to the facts of
the case, nor does the impugned order elaborate any of those reasons. It is however conceded by Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, that the suit could have been dismissed for non-prosecution, on account of the failure on the part of the
appellants to address arguments thereon.
We observe that in the impugned order dated 16.03.2017, it is recorded that the appellants (plaintiffs therein) had not deposited a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only), as undertaken by them in terms of the order dated 08.11.2016 in the suit, as a pre-condition for the same to be
entertained. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, at this juncture states that they would deposit a sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only), as a pre-condition for the suit to be entertained in the event the same is restored to the file of the learned
Single Judge.
In our view, the impugned order dated 16.03.2017 does not clearly and expressly indicate the reasons why the plaint came to be rejected, in terms
of the relevant provisions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
However, since the plaint could have been rejected on the ground of non-prosecution thereof and further in view of non-deposit of the sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only); in view of the aforementioned undertaking of appellants and in the interest of justice, the impugned order is
set aside, subject to costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), which the appellant shall deposit with the Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee, within a period of two weeks from today.
The suit being CS(OS) 244/2016 is restored to its original number and remitted back to the learned Single Judge for further proceedings, in
accordance with law, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That the appellants shall deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only), in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2016 in the
suit, with the Registrar General of this Court, by way of Pay Order/Demand Draft in his favour, within a period of two weeks from today; and
(ii) That the above said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) when deposited would be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt initially for a
period of six months to be renewed from time to time, as per the directions that may be issued by this Court.
With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.