Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 15
RC ARC 167/23
SOHAN LAL Vs. VICCO AGENCIES PVT LTD
21.12.2024 @ 05.00 PM
Present :None
Vide this Order, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of
respondent under Order VII Rule 11 (f) CPC seeking rejection of the
petition.
1. It is stated that the present petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is liable to be rejected. It is stated that
before issuance of summons, an application under Order VI Rule 17
CPC was filed on behalf of petitioner seeking amendment of the
petition which was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2023, however the
respondent received the summons alongwith the copy of
unamended/original petition. It is further stated that the respondent then
filed the leave to defend application within the statutory period and later
vide order dated 26.07.2023, Ld. Counsel for petitioner was directed to
supply the copy of the amended petition to the Ld. Counsel for
respondent within two days and yet the same was not supplied.
2. It is further alleged that later an application under section 151
CPC was filed on behalf of respondent/applicant seeking compliance of
the order dated 31.03.2023, however on 18.09.2023, Ld. Counsel for
petitioner stated that he would place the copy of amended petition on
record which can be then released to the other party. It is further stated
-- 1 of 4 --
that despite the same, no copy of the amended petition was filed by the
petitioner and till today, the same has not been filed by the petitioner in
the Court. Accordingly, it is stated that by not complying with order
dated 26.07.2023 and 18.09.2023 and not filing and serving the
amended petition, the petitioner has made out the grounds for rejection
of plaint under Rule 11(f) of Order VII CPC.
3.
Per-
contra, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that no
ground for rejection of the petition is made out and in any event, another
application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been filed by the petitioner
is pending adjudication.
4. Arguments were heard at length and record has been perused.
The summons of the petition in the prescribed format were issued upon
the respondent vide order dated 31.03.2023, however it appears that the
Ld. Counsel for respondent received the copy of the
unamended/original petition and not the amended one. Accordingly,
vide order dated 26.07.2023, Ld. Counsel for petitioner was directed to
supply the amended petition to the other side within two days and it
appears that again the same was not done. This led to filing of an
application under section 151 CPC by the respondent, however on
18.09.2023, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that copy of the
amended petition shall be placed on record so that the same could be
released to the respondent. The grievance of the applicant/respondent is
that again, petitioner did not comply and therefore, the present
application under Order VII Rule 11 (f) CPC came to be filed on
21.10.2023.
-- 2 of 4 --
5. Order VII Rule 9 of CPC
inter alia provides that plaintiff shall
deposit the requisite fees for service of summons upon defendant within
seven days from the date when the summons were directed to be issued
upon the defendant. Rule 11 (f) of Order VII of CPC
inter alia provides
that where the plaintiff fails to comply with provisions of Order VII
Rule 9 of CPC, the plaint shall be rejected. However, upon bare perusal
of the application and the ordersheets dated 26.07.2023 and 18.09.2023
shows that there is no occasion for exercising powers under Order VII
Rule 11 (f) CPC. Quite apparently, it is not a case where the petitioner
did not deposit the requisite fee for service of summons upon the
defendant or where any prejudice has been caused to the
applicant/respondent due to the default on the part of the petitioner.
6. Furthermore, the delay due to supply of copy of the amended
petition to the applicant/respondent can always be compensated for and
does not amount to a ground for rejection of plaint/petition. Be that as it
may, petitioner is again directed to supply copy of the amended petition
to the respondent/counsel against receiving within two weeks from
today to avoid any further controversy. Let copy of such receiving be
placed on record on the NDOH by the petitioner.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the facts and
circumstances of the case as stated above do not call for exercise of
powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and accordingly, the application
filed by the respondent is hereby dismissed. However, as a negligent
conduct of the petitioner is quite apparent from perusal of the
ordersheets, petitioner is hereby burdened with a cost of Rs.3,000/- to
be paid to the applicant/respondent on the NDOH.
-- 3 of 4 --
7. Be put up for arguments on the pending application filed by the
petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the
petition on 12.03.2025.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
ACJ-cum-ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts
21.12.2024
-- 4 of 4 --