Delhi High Court Orders Applicant to Pay One-Lakh for Filing a Frivolous Appeal

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

The appellant has filed this application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant seeks to recall the order dated 20.04.2020. In this order, the appeal filed to the judgment passed by the trial Court was disposed of by a consent order.

Facts of the Case

The applicant entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent for a monthly rent of Rs. 3 Lakhs. As per the terms of the agreement, the applicant has to pay the rent in advance for every quarter. However, the appellant failed to pay the rent from March 2019 onwards. Further, the respondent served him with a legal notice terminating his tenancy.

Before the passage of termination of tenancy, he issued three cheques on different occasions. All the cheques stood dishonoured on account of insufficient funds.

The appellant stated that he suffered huge monetary losses due to which he failed to pay the rent. He had a business in gold and diamond jewellery. He also had to pay heavy expenses while contesting the Lok Sabha elections from U.P., which he lost.

Due to the failure to pay the rent, the Respondent instituted a suit for possession, rent arrears and mesne profits.

Recall of the Consent Order

The Court recalled the consent order. This was due to the fact that it was incorrectly recorded as owing to a network connectivity issue. He stated that when this part of the order was being dictated, the appellant and counsel were not able to hear it.

Further, he urged in the application that despite his undertaking to pay Rs.10 lacs on or before 04.05.2020, he cannot do the same. He will be able to make part payment only after 30.06.2020.

Preliminary Observations by the Court 

The Court found it appropriate to recall the order due to the connectivity issues. During the video conference, he was unable to hear the complete order.

The appellant did not appear before the Court but later through his counsel agreed to pay the respondent. He stated that he will pay the Rs.30 lakh in three monthly instalments of Rs.10 lakh each. The appellant handed the respondent a cheque in Court for the first instalment of Rs.10 lakhs. The Respondent informed that the cheque was dishonoured. The Court criticised this behaviour of the appellant.

After considering the opportunities given to the appellant, the Court proceeded to decree the respondent’s suit for possession and arrears of rent under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

When the appellant still didn’t vacate the premises, the respondent instituted execution proceedings. The appellant once again prayed for time to clear the rent. He handed over a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Court rejected his prayer in view of his past conduct. The Respondent pointed out that even this cheque had been dishonoured.

The Court heard the appeal on 30.04.2020. After the matter was argued at great length, he prayed for time to vacate the premises. The appellant gave the undertaking to clear the rent by 15 June 2020. Hence, the respondent agreed for grant of time to the appellant vacate the premises by 31.10.2020.

The appellant in the appeal had taken a plea that he had paid Rs.30 lakh to the respondent in cash. This was wholly denied by the respondent.

Court’s Observations on the Merits of this Case

The Court said that it has no doubt that the appeal under consideration is meritless both in law and facts. The appellant has no plausible or legal defence opposing the respondent’s claim.

The Court pointed out that the appellant’s counsel didn’t join the proceedings, passovers and telephonic messages from the court master. In the interest of justice, they adjourned the matter.

The Court also noted that as the judgment was being dictated in both counsel’s presence by video conference, appellant’s counsel was missing. They deferred the judgment for some time, to wait for the learned counsel to reconnect with the same.

The Court found the application wholly misconceived and frivolous. They passed the order rejecting the application after hearing the parties in detail. The application deserves to be rejected with exemplary costs.

Court’s Decision

The bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli decided the matter. The Court allowed the appellant’s application for recall of the order. However, it dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 1 Lakh due to be meritless. It passed the order to discourage unscrupulous litigants from evading judicial orders by abusing the law.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -