A Rent Suit From 2001 Goes Back Again, Because A Direction Was Ignored
The Supreme Court told a Dehradun court to decide a landlord's application to strike out the State's defence on its merits. It refused to decide it at all. The High Court has sent it back.
The Court held the District Judge had not decided the application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC on its own merit, as the Supreme Court had directed in its September 2024 judgment, which made the order contrary to that direction. The order was set aside and the application remanded to be decided on merits, strictly as the Supreme Court had directed.
- Deposits under a court order are not a reason to skip the question. The trial court treated them as one.
- The Supreme Court had set the order of steps: decide the strike-out application first, then the written statement.
- The State is the tenant here, depositing Rs 1 lakh a month as the price of reopening the suit.
- A 25-year-old suit was meant to get priority, and has lost another round instead.
- Court
- High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA SAH
- Citation
- Civil Revision No. 111 of 2026
- Case
- Civil Revision No. 111 of 2026
- Decided
- 10 September 2026
- Outcome
- Revision allowed; order set aside and application remanded for decision on merits
A suit that began in 2001
The landlords sued the State of Uttarakhand in 2001 in the Small Cause Court at Dehradun for arrears of rent, mesne profits and ejectment. The State's defence was struck out and an ex parte decree passed in 2002. Revisions against it failed in the High Court.
In September 2024 the Supreme Court set aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit, on condition that the defendants deposit an ad hoc Rs 1,00,000 a month from July 2014, and continue to do so until the suit is decided.
It directed the trial court to hear the application for striking out the defence first, with out-of-turn priority given the age of the suit, and only then decide whether the defendants may file a written statement.
What the trial court did instead
The deposits were made, the suit was restored, and the parties exchanged objections and replies on the application under Order XV Rule 5.
In May 2026 the District Judge rejected the application, reasoning that deciding it at that stage would be against the spirit of the Supreme Court's order, since the rent was being deposited in compliance with it.
On a query from the High Court, the State's counsel could not show that the application had been decided on its own merits.
The High Court's order
Because the application was not decided on its own merit, the order was contrary to the directions in paragraph 12 of the Supreme Court's judgment.
In the interest of justice, the order of May 2026 was set aside and the matter remanded to the District Judge, Dehradun, to decide the application under Order XV Rule 5 on its own merit, strictly as the Supreme Court directed.
The revision was allowed.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a trial court refuse to decide a strike-out application because rent is being deposited?
Not where it was directed to decide it on merits. The order was set aside for that reason.
What is Order XV Rule 5 CPC?
It allows a court to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to deposit admitted rent, as amended in some States.
When a lower court sidesteps a higher court's direction
- Quote the precise paragraph of the higher court's direction in the revision.
- Show that the impugned order does not engage the merits at all.
- Ask for a time-bound remand where the higher court ordered priority.
- Keep the deposit record current; it is the condition the other side depends on.
Source. High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, Civil Revision No. 111 of 2026, decided 10 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA SAH. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in