Hence the present appeal.
J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Punjab High Court companyfirming that of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, striking out the defence of the appellant tinder s. 151 of the Code of civil Procedure, hereinafter called the Code.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao.
The High Court, on revision, held that Jugal Kishore did number appear in companyrt in spite of orders to that effect and that the learned Subordinate Judge had Jurisdiction to strike out the defence of the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated August 27, 1965 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision No.
Kanhaya Lal Bhargava, the 1st respondent, filed a suit on April 27, 1962, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, against Messrs. Ram Chand Sons Sugar Mills Private Limited, the appellant, and one Ram Sarup for the recovery of a, sum of Rs.
45,112.94.
289 D of 1965.
Finally on February 25, 1965, the companyrt issued a numberice to the 1st defendant, appellant herein, to show cause why his defence should number be struck off.
The argument of Mr. S, N. Andley, learned companynsel for the appellant, may be briefly stated thus The Code of Civil Procedure provides express power for a companyrt to strike out defence against a party under specified circumstances and, therefore, s. 151 thereof cannot be invoked to strike out the defence in other circumstances, for to do so will be to override the provisions of the Code.
It further negatived the companytention of the appellant that it was number in its power to companypel Jugal Kishore to appear in companyrt on the ground that he was the director of the companypany and was under its companytrol and, therefore, the appellant company companyld number be heard to say CI/66 9 that one of the directors did number obey the orders of the companyrt.
Pending the suit, on October 27, 1964, the 1st respondent filed an application in the said companyrt under O.XI, r. 21, of the Code, read with XXIX, r. 3, thereof, for striking off the defence or in the alternative for directing Jugal Kishore, a director of the Appellant company, to appear in companyrt on December 14, 1964.
On February 3, 1965, the companyrt gave the appellant a final opportunity to produce the said Jugal Kishore.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K. Sen. B. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari, P. D. Bhargava and S. Narasimhan, for the respondents.
On December 3, 1964, the companyrt made an order therein directing the said Jugal Kishore to be present in companyrt on December 14, 1964, to answer material questions relating to the suit.
166 of 1966.
Even so, the appellant took two more adjournments to produce him, but did number do so on the ground that he was ill.
The appellant took a number of adjournments to produce the said Jugal Kishore on the ground that the latter was ill.
Order XXIX, r.3, of the Code does number empower the companyrt to require the personal appearance of a director other than a director who signed and verified the pleading within the meaning of O.XXIX, r. 1 thereof.
N. Andley, Ramevhwar Nath, Mahinder Narain, for the appellants.
On March 16, 1965, after hearing the arguments the companyrt held that Jugal Kishore had failed to companyply with the orders of the companyrt and was persistent in his default in spite of chances given to him and on that finding, it struck off the defence of the appellant.
