Non-payment of costs as a condition precedent for filing written statement mandates striking off the defence.

The Petitioner (Defendant) was the son of a former Chowkidar of the Respondent (Plaintiff) society. The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of a "two room set" at Skipton Villa, Shimla, alleging the Defendant continued to occupy the premises unauthorizedly after his father's death

The Trial Court granted the Defendant three opportunities to file a written statement. On December 4, 2019, the Court allowed a final extension subject to a cost of ₹1,000 as a condition precedent

Instead of complying, the Defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 15(2) CPC for further particulars. On January 2, 2020, the Trial Court struck off the defense due to non-payment of costs and failure to file the written statement

During the revision proceedings, a settlement deed was produced where the Defendant reportedly accepted ₹4,50,000 to vacate, but he later re-deposited the money into the Plaintiff's account without court permission, disputing the compromise

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in striking off the defense of the Defendant for non-compliance with the order to pay costs and file a written statement

2. Whether the application under Order 6 Rule 15(2) CPC for particulars was a valid ground to defer the filing of the written statement

Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates that where costs are imposed for causing delay, the payment of such costs is a "condition precedent" to the further prosecution of the suit or defense

Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Anand Parkash v. Bharat Bhushan Rai & Anr. (AIR 1981 P&H 269), which established that the word "shall" in Section 35B, qualified by "condition precedent," makes the provision mandatory; failure to pay costs must result in the court disallowing the defense

The Court also exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s conduct throughout the litigation was intended to delay proceedings "on one pretext or the other"

The Trial Court's order dated December 4, 2019, explicitly signaled that no further opportunities would be provided and made the payment of costs a condition precedent

The Court found that the Petitioner’s decision to file an application under Order 6 Rule 15(2) CPC instead of filing the written statement was a "novel idea to linger on the proceedings"

the information sought (the date of his father's employment and death) was either already in the plaint or within the Petitioner’s personal knowledge

Applying the mandatory rule of Section 35B CPC, the Court held that since the costs were not paid and no request for extension was made, the Trial Court had no choice but to strike off the defense

The High Court dismissed the Revision Petition, upholding the Trial Court’s orders dated January 2, 2020, and February 24, 2022. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on May 6, 2026, with a mandate to dispose of the 2018 suit within six months