AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Admit.
Heard finally on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the order passed by the trial Court below ExhibitÂ1 in exercise of powers under OrderÂXI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is
after giving reasonable opportunity to the defendant?
The respondent is the original plaintiff who had filed suit seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,33,303/Â being the balance amount payable on
account of work done by him. According to the plaintiff, he had supplied water to the respondents of Ward No.17 in the city of Akola for the period
from 29Â9Â2004 to 31Â7Â2005 but he was not paid the entire dues as agreed. In the written statement it was pleaded that the suit was barred by
limitation and that the defendant had made necessary payments due to which there were no dues to be further paid. The trial Court after considering
the evidence on record partly decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,33,303/along with interest. Being aggrieved, the
original defendant filed an appeal which came to be dismissed. Hence this second appeal.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that before the trial Court the plaintiff had filed two applications at Exhibits 18 and 19. As
per application at ExhibitÂ18, a notice to produce certain original documents was given to the defendant. As per application at ExhibitÂ19,
discovery of documents under Order XI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) was sought. The defendant despite
these applications did not comply with the directions issued therein. The trial Court, therefore, exercised powers under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code
and struck off the defence of the defendant. It is submitted that this course was not permissible as the defence was struck off without granting
an opportunity to the defendant. This has caused prejudice to the case of the defendant and the impugned judgment is therefore liable to be set
aside.
Shri O. Y. Kashid, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the directions issued in both the
applications were not complied with and therefore the defence was rightly struck off. It was submitted that the order passed by the trial Court below
ExhibitÂ1 on 11Â11Â2010 was not challenged by the defendant before the appellate Court and therefore such challenge should not be permitted at
this stage. The claim having been duly proved the decree does not call for any interference.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had filed two
applications at Exhibits 18 and 19 seeking production of the original records and for discovery of documents. No say was filed by the defendant and
therefore, the trial Court directed the defendant to discover the said documents on affidavit. This order was passed on 22Â10Â2010. On 11Â‐
11Â2010 the trial Court passed an order below ExhibitÂ1 and struck off the pleadings of the defendant. This has been done in exercise of powers
under provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the Code.
As per the provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the Code, the party failing to comply with any order, if a defendant is liable to have the defence struck
off. This is however subject to the other party applying to the Court for an order to that effect and such order being made on that application after due
notice to the parties and giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard. The records indicate that the plaintiff did not move any application for
striking off the defence of the defendant and without granting any opportunity to the defendant, the trial Court passed an order below ExhibitÂ1 and
struck of the defence. In absence of any such application by the plaintiff as contemplated by Rule 21 of Order XI of the Code, the defence could
not have been struck off in such a manner. Suo motu exercise of powers in this regard are not contemplated by aforesaid provisions that too
without notice to the other side. There is therefore failure to comply with the provisions of Order XI Rule 21 of the Code. The order striking out the
defence is a drastic order causing prejudice to that party whose defence is struck off. The power in that regard has thus to be exercised after
complying with the prescribed procedure. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in United Church of Northern India Trust
Association Mumbai vs. Pradip Thomas Parmar and others 2017 (2) Mh.L.J. 747. The prescribed procedure not having been followed, the further
adjudication of the suit has been affected.
Though it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that no ground in that regard was raised before the appellate Court, as per ground
No.18 in the memorandum of appeal, a grievance has been made that the trial Court decided the suit in a manner contrary to law and against the
principles of natural justice. This ground is sufficient to sustain the present challenge. On this count therefore the adjudication of the suit stands
vitiated. Hence, the trial Court is required to be directed to decide the proceedings from the stage of reconsideration of the applications at Exhibits 18
and 19. The substantial question of law is answered by holding that the order passed by the trial Court below ExhibitÂ1 in exercise of powers under
Order XI Rule 21 of the Code is without giving an opportunity to the defendant.
In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:
(a) The judgment of the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.70/2009 dated 22Â12Â2010 as well as the judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No.143/2012
dated 18Â3Â2017Â is set aside. The proceedings are remitted to the trial Court which shall decide the suit afresh by taking up for consideration the
applications at Exhibits 18 and 19. It would be open for the plaintiff to move appropriate application under Order XI Rule 21 of the Code in case of
nonÂcompliance. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 1Â9Â2018. The suit be decided expeditiously. Record and proceedings be
sent to the trial Court forthwith.
(b) The amount of Rs.75,000/Â deposited by the defendant shall be transferred along with accrued interest to the trial Court and that amount shall
abide by the final orders in the suit.
(c) The Second Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.