Order XV Rule 5 applications must be decided on merits, notwithstanding Supreme Court-directed deposits.

The revisionists/plaintiffs instituted SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001 before the Judge, Small Cause Court/District Judge, Dehradun, seeking recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and ejectment.

An application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC was allowed on 3 May 2002, and the suit was decreed ex parte on 24 August 2002.

The defendants’ challenge before the High Court and subsequent review were dismissed.

In appeals, the Supreme Court, by judgment dated 12 September 2024, set aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit subject to the defendants depositing an ad hoc amount of ₹1,00,000 per month from 14 July 2014; it further directed that the application for striking out the defence be decided before considering the filing of the written statement and on its own merits.

The defendants deposited ₹19,73,720 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions, and the suit was restored.

Thereafter, the parties exchanged objections and replies concerning the plaintiffs’ application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.

By order dated 30 May 2026, the Trial Court rejected the application, reasoning that deciding it at that stage would be contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court’s order since rent was being deposited pursuant to that order.

The plaintiffs challenged that order under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

The Court applied Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, under which the High Court may examine the legality and propriety of an order passed by a Small Cause Court.

It considered Order XV Rule 5 CPC, which governs the consequences of a tenant’s failure to deposit admitted rent and continuing rent during the pendency of a suit, including the striking out of the defence.

The Court also treated the Supreme Court’s directions dated 12 September 2024 as binding, particularly the directions that the Trial Court must first decide the application for striking out the defence and that such application must be determined in accordance with its own merits; only thereafter could the issue of filing the written statement be considered.

The Supreme Court’s direction requiring payment of ₹1,00,000 per month was a condition for restoration of the suit and continuation of the proceedings, and did not dispense with adjudication of the Order XV Rule 5 application.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had not examined whether the defendants had complied with Order XV Rule 5 CPC or whether their defence was liable to be struck out on the merits.

Instead, it rejected the application solely on the ground that deposits were being made pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order.

The Supreme Court had expressly directed the Trial Court to decide the application for striking out the defence before addressing the written statement and had left the parties’ contentions concerning withdrawal and entitlement to the deposited amounts open.

Consequently, the defendants’ compliance with the separate condition of depositing ₹1,00,000 per month could not, by itself, justify rejection of the application without a merits-based determination under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.

Since the Trial Court failed to follow the binding directions of the Supreme Court, its order was legally unsustainable.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 30 May 2026 rejecting the application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.

The matter was remanded to the Judge, Small Cause Court/District Judge, Dehradun, with a direction to decide the application for striking out the defence on its own merits and strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions dated 12 September 2024.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.