BAL GOPAL MAHESHWARI & ORS versus SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA

BAL GOPAL MAHESHWARI & ORS versus SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA

Where both the trial and revisional courts have carefully exercised their discretionary power under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC to strike off the defence for repeated defaults in payment of rent, and where no perversity or excess of jurisdiction is found, the High Court cannot, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, sit in appeal to alter findings of fact without any valid ground. The judgment of the High Court setting aside the orders of the lower courts was therefore not sustainable.

Parties
Appellant: Bal Gopal Maheshwari & Ors.; Respondent: Sanjeev Kumar Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of the High Court Under Article 227 of the Constitution
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Striking Off Defence, Eviction, Default in Rent Payment, Discretion of Court
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Striking Off Defence Eviction Default in Rent Payment Discretion of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bal Gopal Maheshwari & Ors.

Appellant

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of the High Court Under Article 227 of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside concurrent findings of lower courts striking off the defence of the tenant for default in payment of rent under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.
  2. 2 Whether courts below correctly exercised discretionary power under Order XV Rule 5 CPC in striking off the defence.
  3. 3 Whether High Court could sit in appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution to alter findings of fact without any ground.

Ratio Decidendi

Where both the trial and revisional courts have carefully exercised their discretionary power under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC to strike off the defence for repeated defaults in payment of rent, and where no perversity or excess of jurisdiction is found, the High Court cannot, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, sit in appeal to alter findings of fact without any valid ground. The judgment of the High Court setting aside the orders of the lower courts was therefore not sustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 44387 of 2007 set aside.
  • Trial Court to decide Suit No. 17 of 1998 expeditiously.