Dharmendra Kalra v. Kulvinder Singh Bhatia 2026 INSC 492 - CPC - Striking Off Defence
Order XV Rule 5 CPC: Courts Must Avoid Mechanical Striking Off of Defence; "First Date Of Hearing" Clarified
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XV Rule 5 - The power to strike off the defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, though couched in mandatory terms, is not to be exercised mechanically. The Court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious - Striking off the defence is a serious matter and ought not to be resorted to unless there is a clear case of deliberate default or contumacious conduct on the part of the tenant. The expression ‘first date of hearing’ has to be understood as the date when the Court proposes to apply its mind to the controversy involved in the suit and not any earlier date fixed for procedural purposes -The “first date of hearing” is not a mere formal date but the date on which the Court applies its mind to the case, ordinarily at the stage of framing of issues or consideration of pleadings. (Para 15-19)
Case Info
Case name: Dharmendra Kalra & Ors. v. Kulvinder Singh Bhatia
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 492
Coram:
- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
- Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Judgment date: May 15, 2026
Case laws and citations referred
- Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal, (1981) 3 SCC 486
- Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, (1980) 3 SCC 610
- Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, (1993) 4 SCC 406
- Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344
Statutes / laws referred
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XV Rule 5, Order IX Rule 7, Order VII Rule 11
- Constitution of India – Article 136
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106
- Provincial Small Causes Courts Act – Section 15
- Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (U.P. Act 16 of 2021)
Brief summary (three sentences)
The dispute arose from an eviction and arrears of rent suit where the landlords’ application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC led the Trial Court to strike off the tenant’s defence for non‑deposit of rent, a decision later interfered with by the Allahabad High Court, which granted the tenant time and then extended it. The Supreme Court reiterated that while Order XV Rule 5 seeks to prevent tenants from continuing in possession without depositing admitted rent, striking off the defence is a penal and discretionary measure that cannot be applied mechanically and requires proper determination of the “first date of hearing” and assessment of whether any default is wilful. Finding that both the Trial Court and the High Court had not dealt with these aspects comprehensively, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to reconsider the Order XV Rule 5 application afresh and decide it within six months.