Introduction

The case of Ram Kumar Singh v. III Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court on December 13, 2002, delves deep into the procedural compliances under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This writ petition was brought forward by Ram Kumar Singh, challenging the decisions of lower courts that struck off his defense in an ejectment suit filed against him.

The core issue revolves around whether the petitioner complied with the mandatory requirements of depositing rent as stipulated by the CPC during the pendency of the suit. The case further explores the discretion courts possess in striking off defenses and the applicability of various precedents in guiding such decisions.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioner, Ram Kumar Singh, challenged the judgments of the III Additional District Judge and the Judge of the Small Causes Court in Ghaziabad, who had decreed the ejectment suit filed against him. The lower courts had struck off his defense on the grounds of non-compliance with Order XV, Rule 5 of the CPC, which mandates the deposit of admitted rent and regular monthly deposits throughout the suit's duration.

Upon reviewing the submissions, including the alleged deposits made under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the Allahabad High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions. It concluded that the petitioner failed to comply with the required deposit protocols and did not provide any valid representation to absolve himself from the consequences of his non-compliance. Consequently, the writ petition filed by Ram Kumar Singh was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references previous cases to establish the legal framework and guide the current decision. Notable among these are:

• Mahboob alias Challa v. Mohammad Hussain (1983 ARC 651)
• Bharat Bhushan Mishra v. District Judge Gonda (1990 ALJ 292)
• Bal Krishna v. Ramanand Dixit (1996)
• Rajendra Pal Garg v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Dehradun (1987)
• Smt. Satya Kumar Kamthan v. Noor Ahmad (1992 ARC 82)

The court evaluated these precedents to interpret the applicability of Order XV, Rule 5 CPC. Particularly, the cases highlighted the necessity for strict compliance with procedural deposit requirements and the courts' discretion in striking off defenses based on such compliance.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court emphasized the dual obligations under Order XV, Rule 5(1) CPC:

• First Part (Head A): Deposit of the entire admitted amount due along with interest before the first hearing of the suit.
• Second Part (Head B): Regular monthly deposits of the due amount within a week from each month's due date throughout the suit's duration, irrespective of admission of debt.

The court scrutinized the petitioner's actions, noting his failure to make regular monthly deposits within the stipulated timeframe and his continued reliance on deposits under Section 30 of the U.P. Act, which was deemed non-compliant post the first hearing of the suit. The absence of a valid representation to the court further solidified the decision to uphold the lower courts' orders to strike off the defense.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent adherence required under Order XV, Rule 5 CPC in eviction suits. It underscores the courts' authority to exercise discretion judiciously when defendants fail to comply with procedural mandates. Future cases involving similar non-compliance will likely reference this decision to justify the striking off of defenses, ensuring that lessees remain accountable to set deposit protocols.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Ram Kumar Singh case serves as a pivotal reference for eviction suits under the CPC, particularly highlighting the critical nature of procedural compliance. By upholding the lower courts' decisions to strike off the defense due to non-compliance with Order XV, Rule 5 CPC, the Allahabad High Court reinforced the imperative for lessees to adhere strictly to deposition requirements. This judgment not only clarifies the application of procedural rules but also delineates the extent of judicial discretion in managing non-compliance, thereby shaping the landscape of property law and eviction proceedings in India.