Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, on July 8, 2025, issued a judgement allowing a writ petition filed by two petitioners seeking the striking off of the defence of the respondent in a civil suit. The Court quashed the order dated July 5, 2024, passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and allowed the petitioners' application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby striking off the written statement filed by the respondent in the pending civil suit. The Court concluded that continuous non-compliance with judicial directions rendered the respondent undeserving of indulgence.

The petitioners, represented by their GPA holder Mr. K. Narayanan, are the owners of a suit schedule property located in Bengaluru. They leased the property to the respondent, who operated a pre-school named "Oranges Play Home and Vidyadarpan Tutorials." Following persistent defaults in rental payments, the petitioners filed an eviction suit on August 30, 2022, designated as O.S.No.5660 of 2022. Alongside the suit, they submitted applications seeking a temporary injunction and an order directing the respondent to deposit accrued rent.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Right To Levy Penal Charges After Delivery | Section 66 Permits Demand For Misdeclared Goods Irrespective Of Timing

On January 20, 2023, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC seeking a direction for the respondent to deposit rent arrears spanning March 1, 2020, to August 30, 2022. The Court partially allowed this application on July 15, 2023, directing the respondent to deposit arrears at the rate of ₹82,431 per month for the said period. This decision was appealed in MFA No.6772 of 2023 but was dismissed by the High Court on February 9, 2024. The Court noted that despite sufficient opportunity, the rent remained unpaid.

Subsequently, the petitioners filed I.A. No.X under Order VI Rule 16 seeking to strike off the respondent's defence in the civil suit due to her non-compliance with the earlier court orders. The trial court, however, rejected this application through its order dated July 5, 2024. This prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court.

During the proceedings, the petitioners submitted that the respondent had not paid any rent for five years, resulting in arrears approximating ₹50 lakhs. Despite multiple judicial directions, the respondent neither complied with the rent deposit order nor vacated the premises. The petitioners stated the urgency of recovering possession to house their aged parents.

The respondent, through counsel, contended that the rent default pertained to the COVID-19 period during which the school was non-operational. She sought a waiver for the said duration and requested a two-year extension to clear the arrears, indicating her intent to continue operating the school.

In rebuttal, the petitioners stated that the school license was cancelled on March 2, 2023, and no renewal was granted. Thus, the respondent could not legitimately claim operational need. Moreover, a communication from the respondent dated April 2025 offered to vacate the premises by April 30, 2025, provided the landlords waived the entire rent claim. The petitioners argued that such a proposal was not made in good faith.

The Court recorded, "Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits striking off of the defence in the written statement, if there is violation of the orders passed." Referring to the order dated July 15, 2023, in O.S.No.5660 of 2022, the Court quoted: "The defendant is directed to deposit the arrears of rent @ ₹82,431/- per month from 01-06-2020 till 30-08-2022 within two months from the date of this order."

The High Court noted that the said order had been upheld by a coordinate bench in MFA No.6772 of 2023 with the following remarks: "The said order has not been complied with and even inspite of granting sufficient opportunity... till date, the appellant has not deposited the rent. Hence, the question of entertaining this appeal does not arise."

Examining the respondent's April 2025 communication, the Court remarked, "The letter... only exacerbates the indignity of the situation, wherein she states that she would vacate peacefully, provided the landlords-plaintiffs forego the claim for rent. In the concerned view of the Court, it is a proposal that smacks of audacity, rather than remorse."

The Court relied on judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts to support its view. It referred to the Apex Court's decision in Aero Traders (P) Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, (2004) 8 SCC 307, stating, "A litigant who defies the interim order/directions of the Court is undeserving of any indulgence."

Similarly, in Asha Rani Gupta v. Vineet Kumar, (2023) 20 SCC 273, the Court quoted, "Even the High Court did not find the pleas taken by the respondent-defendant to be of bona fide character... we are clearly of the view that there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to have interfered..."

Also Read: Bombay High Court : Courts Need Not Order DNA Test Merely Because Mother Agrees | Must Act As Custodians Of Child’s Rights | Presumption Of Legitimacy Prevails Unless No Access Is Proved

The Madras High Court in Anita v. Mahaveer Sancheti and the Delhi High Court in Erum Travels v. Kanwar Rani were cited to demonstrate the courts' inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to enforce interim orders by striking off defences in case of willful non-compliance.

The Court observed, "Judicial discretion must not be exercised in favour of a party indulging in contumacious defiance. No party has a right to be heard on merits, when interim orders are violated with impunity."

Further, it noted, "This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the power to strike off a defence must be exercised with restraint and circumspection. Yet, in the present circumstance... indulgence would tantamount to rewarding disobedience."

The Court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought and issued the following directives:

"Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 5-07-2024 passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.5660 of 2022 stands quashed. I.A.No.X filed under Order VI Rule 16 CPC in O.S.No.5660 of 2022 is allowed and the defence of the defendant to the suit is struck off."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Smt. Shweta Krishnappa, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri T.H. Avin, Advocate

Case Title: Mr. Venugopal Krishnamurthy & Another v. Smt. M. Tejaswini

Case Number: Writ Petition No.21479 of 2024 (GM-CPC)

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna