Litigants Who Defy Court Orders Have No Right to be Heard on Merits: Karnataka High Court Orders Striking Off Tenant’s Defence

“Courts Will Not Reward Defiance of Judicial Orders”, In a strong judgment delivered on 8th July 2025, the Karnataka High Court, through Justice M. Nagaprasanna, decisively upheld the authority of courts to prevent abuse of judicial processes by striking off the defence of a tenant who had deliberately defaulted on rent payment despite repeated court orders. In the case of Venugopal Krishnamurthy & Anr. v. M. Tejaswini (W.P. No. 21479 of 2024), the Court held, “Judicial discretion must not be exercised in favour of a party indulging in contumacious defiance. No party has a right to be heard on merits, when interim orders are violated with impunity.”

The landlords, petitioners in the case, owned a commercial property rented to the respondent who operated a pre-school titled ‘Oranges Play Home and Vidyadarpan Tutorials’. From June 2020 onwards, the respondent defaulted on paying rent, prompting the landlords to file eviction proceedings in O.S. No. 5660 of 2022.

In July 2023, the Trial Court directed the tenant to deposit rent arrears of ₹82,431 per month for 26 months (from June 2020 to August 2022) under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC. Despite dismissal of her appeal in MFA No. 6772/2023 by the High Court in February 2024, the tenant failed to deposit a single rupee, accumulating arrears exceeding ₹50 lakhs. Consequently, the landlords filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC seeking to strike off the defence of the tenant for deliberate and continuing non-compliance.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna addressed the central legal question — whether persistent violation of court orders by a litigant warranted striking off their defence under the Civil Procedure Code.

The Court clarified:
“Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits striking off of the defence in the written statement if there is violation of court orders. When a litigant demonstrates audacity and disregard for judicial authority, such power must be exercised to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings.” (Para 9)

The Court rejected the tenant’s plea for indulgence citing COVID-19 hardships, noting:
“It is established that the tenant's school licence was cancelled in 2023. The plea of COVID-19 hardship is an eyewash to evade legal obligations.” (Para 10)

Justice Nagaprasanna meticulously examined the repeated judicial directions, including the Trial Court’s order dated 15.07.2023 and the High Court’s dismissal of appeal on 09.02.2024. Both orders directed deposit of arrears, yet the tenant paid nothing. The Court observed:
“The tenant is squatting over the property without any legal right, refusing to pay rent, ignoring every judicial direction, while the property owners are deprived of lawful use of their premises.” (Para 6)

The Court relied on landmark rulings, including Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Suri (2004) 8 SCC 307, and Asha Rani Gupta v. Vineet Kumar (2021) 7 SCC 732, affirming the principle that:
“A litigant who defies interim orders is undeserving of judicial indulgence.” (Para 11)

Furthermore, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, emphasizing:
“Where there is wilful disobedience of court orders, striking off defence becomes necessary to prevent abuse of process and to preserve faith in the judicial system.” (Para 15)

Justice Nagaprasanna categorically held that in matters of persistent default and defiance of court orders, the Court has a constitutional duty to act firmly:
“This Court cannot be a mute spectator to a litigant who has not paid rent for five years, blatantly violated court orders, and shown absolute disregard to the rule of law.” (Para 17)

The Court concluded that any leniency would only embolden disregard of judicial authority and undermine the effectiveness of the judiciary.

Allowing the writ petition, Justice M. Nagaprasanna struck off the tenant’s defence, holding:
“Litigants violating interim orders do not deserve judicial indulgence. Indulgence in such cases amounts to rewarding disobedience. The conduct of the respondent is a classic abuse of process, warranting the striking off of the defence.” (Para 18)

This judgment stands as a definitive reaffirmation of the principle that courts must act decisively to prevent misuse of the judicial process and enforce compliance with their orders.

Date of Decision: 8th July 2025