Mangat Singh v. Sat Pal AIR 2003 SC 4300

MANGAT SINGH V. SAT PAL

Whether the first hearing under Order XV Rule 5 CPC refers to the date of appearance or the date when the court applies its mind to the case?
Whether the power to strike off the tenant’s defense for non-deposit of arrears of rent is discretionary or mandatory?

The first hearing in the context of Order XV Rule 5 CPC does not mean the date fixed for the return of summons or the first date of appearance but refers to the stage when the court applies its mind to the case, such as framing of issues or commencement of trial.
The power to strike off the tenant’s defense for non-deposit of rent is not absolute but subject to judicial discretion, requiring consideration of the circumstances, including whether the tenant’s failure was willful or due to a bona fide dispute.

The landlords (petitioners) filed eviction suits against the tenants (respondents) for non-payment of rent.
The trial court issued summons to the tenants, mentioning a date for their appearance but not specifying it as the date of the first hearing.
The tenants deposited arrears of rent but not within the period calculated from the date of summons, leading the landlords to seek striking off their defense under Order XV Rule 5 CPC (as applicable in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh).
The trial court rejected the landlords’ application and allowed the tenants to deposit arrears of rent, holding that the defense should not be struck off as the delay was not willful.
The landlords appealed to the High Court under Section 115 CPC (revisional jurisdiction), arguing that the tenants’ failure to deposit arrears within the prescribed period warranted striking off their defense.
The High Court reversed the trial court’s order, striking off the tenants’ defense for non-compliance with Order XV Rule 5 CPC, holding that the provision required strict adherence.
The tenants appealed to the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition, challenging the High Court’s interference with the trial court’s discretionary order.

The Supreme Court held that the “first hearing” under Order XV Rule 5 CPC does not mean the date of appearance but refers to the stage when the court applies its judicial mind to the case, such as framing of issues or taking evidence.
The Court ruled that the power to strike off defense under Order XV Rule 5 CPC is discretionary and not mandatory. The trial court must assess the tenant’s conduct and circumstances before exercising this power.
The Court observed that the tenants had deposited arrears of rent in a bank for the landlord’s benefit, indicating no mala fide intent to withhold rent. Therefore, striking off the defense was not justified.
The Court held that the High Court’s interference under Section 115 CPC was unjustified, as the trial court had exercised its discretion in accordance with law. A revisional court cannot interfere merely because it has a different view, unless there is a jurisdictional error.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s decision, allowing the tenants to defend the eviction suits. The matter was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings.