Ashwini Kumar Bahl Vs. Sardar Harbhajan Singh Chowla
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1991
(Arising out of SLP No.363/89)
(Arising out of SLP No.363/89)
Petitioner: Ashwini Kumar Bahl
Respondent: Sardar Harbhajan Singh Chowla
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1991
(Arising out of SLP No.363/89)
(Arising out of SLP No.363/89)
Judges: A.M. AHMADI & S.C AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 18, 1991
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Rent law – Application for striking off defence – Appellant willing to deposit the amount but could not keep to the schedule of 15 days merely on account of financial difficulties – It is always desirable that a matter is decided on merits and not on technical grounds – The defence should not be impaired, as far as possible, unless there is no other alternative.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted.
2. We have heard counsel on both sides. We find from the facts placed on record that the appellant-tenant had applied for a challan in February 1988 and the challan was passed on March 7, 1988. The amount was actually deposited on 6th April, 1988. The counsel for the appellant was asked to explain the delay and he has stated that the delay was on account of yfinancial stringency experienced by the appellant. We find that when the application for striking off the defence was made the amount was already deposited. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the tenant’s right to defend the suit need not have been impaired. There was willingness to deposit the amount but he could not keep to the schedule of 15 days merely on account of financial difficulties. It is always desirable that a matter is decided on merits and not on technical grounds. The defence should not be impaired, as far as possible, unless there is no other alternative. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal and direct that the suit proceedings will be disposed of in accordance with law after taking into consideration the contentions raised by the appellant in his written statement. The appellant will continue to deposit the rent during the tenancy of the proceedings regularly. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. We have heard counsel on both sides. We find from the facts placed on record that the appellant-tenant had applied for a challan in February 1988 and the challan was passed on March 7, 1988. The amount was actually deposited on 6th April, 1988. The counsel for the appellant was asked to explain the delay and he has stated that the delay was on account of yfinancial stringency experienced by the appellant. We find that when the application for striking off the defence was made the amount was already deposited. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the tenant’s right to defend the suit need not have been impaired. There was willingness to deposit the amount but he could not keep to the schedule of 15 days merely on account of financial difficulties. It is always desirable that a matter is decided on merits and not on technical grounds. The defence should not be impaired, as far as possible, unless there is no other alternative. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal and direct that the suit proceedings will be disposed of in accordance with law after taking into consideration the contentions raised by the appellant in his written statement. The appellant will continue to deposit the rent during the tenancy of the proceedings regularly. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
