J. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against order dated 2. 7. 2005 passed by civil Judge, Delhi dismissing an application under Section 151 CPC of the petitioner- defendant for taking his written statement on record and for setting aside the order dated 21. 3. 2005 striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant. ( 2 ) I have heard the parties in person. Earlier i had heard the learned counsel for the parties as well. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondent (herein after referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession and recovery, damages/ mesne profits against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in may, 2003 alleging that she was the owner of the flat No. 26, Jaina Apartment, Plot No. 26, sector-13, Rohini, Delhi and had let the same on 8. 5. 1995 to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1400/- besides Rs. 200/- as maintenance charges of the Housing Society. Electricity and water charges were to be paid by the defendant as per bills to the concerned authorities. In August, 1996 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1700/- and again it was enhanced to Rs. 2500/- in 1997. The other charges remained the same. The defendant stopped paying rent w. e. f. 8. 3. 1998. Notice was served upon him. The defendant was stated to be in arrears w. e. f. 8. 3. 1998. The litigation started before the Rent Controller. The defendant objected that the petition was not maintainable under the Delhi Rent Control act because the relationship was of lessor and lessee. Therefore the owner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of rs. 79,400/ -. On 5. 2. 2004 the defendant was proceeded ex parte. Ex parte evidence was recorded and judgment was passed on 27. 7. 2004 for recovery of possession and recovery of rent @ Rs. 1700/- per month w. e. f. 7. 4. 2003, Rs. 200/- as maintenance charges for Housing society and Rs. 700/- per month for water and electricity charges. The suit was decreed with costs. ( 4 ) ON 18. 10. 2004 the defendant moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. Efforts for compromise were made but failed. On 4. 1. 2003, Rs. 200/- as maintenance charges for Housing society and Rs. 700/- per month for water and electricity charges. The suit was decreed with costs. ( 4 ) ON 18. 10. 2004 the defendant moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. Efforts for compromise were made but failed. On 4. 1. 2005 the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was allowed and the matter was fixed for filing written statement/reply on 8. 2. 2005. Written statement was not filed. On 9. 3. 2005 further time was granted to file written statement within one week and the matter was fixed for admission-denial. But written statement was presented only on 21. 3. 2d05, which was objected to by learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the written statement was to be filed within one week from 9. 3. 2005 and that the defence be struck off and in view of the provisions of Order VIII rule 1 CPC the learned Civil Judge opined that the defendant had not explained the circumstances which prevented him from filing the written statement within the prescribed period and declined to take the written statement on record and struck off the defence of the defendant. Instead of challenging that order an application under section 151 CPC was moved on behalf on the defendant on 13. 5. 2005 for setting aside the order dated 21. 3. 2005 which was dismissed on 2. 7. 2005. Again there was a talk of compromise but without any fruitful results. Defendant again stopped appearing in the court and was proceeded ex parte on 3. 9. 2005 and the matter was adjourned to 15. 10. 2005 apparently because the defendant did not bother to convey to the trial court that proceedings had been stayed by the High Court on 2. 9. 2005. An application for setting aside the ex-parte order is pending in the trial court. Now order dated 2. 7. 2005 has been challenged but behind it in fact time barred order dated 21. 3. 2005 is being challenged. ( 5 ) I have given the progress of the case in the trial court in some detail with the specific purpose of examining the conduct of the defendant in the trial court. Now order dated 2. 7. 2005 has been challenged but behind it in fact time barred order dated 21. 3. 2005 is being challenged. ( 5 ) I have given the progress of the case in the trial court in some detail with the specific purpose of examining the conduct of the defendant in the trial court. Perusal of the order sheets in the trial court shows that almost on every date of hearing the defendant was not present on the first call or even on the second call and would keep the judge, the plaintiff and her learned counsel waiting for his arrival. Further he had somehow evaded the service of summons at the first instance and allowed the judgment to be passed ex parte, apparently knowing well that normally the ex parte judgment is set aside and it was actually set aside. Thereafter he started dilly-dallying in filing the written statement. His defence was struck off on 21. 3. 2005 but he did not challenge that order and preferred to file an application under section 151 CPC in the trial court on 13. 5. 2005 for taking the written statement on record. The application was dismissed vide detailed order dated 2. 7. 2005, which has been challenged in this court and inter alia the order dated 21. 3. 2005 striking out the defence has also been challenged in the present petition. ( 6 ) THE defiant conduct of the petitioner even in the High Court is writ large on the order sheets of the High Court file. On 8. 12. 2005 it was directed that learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant) will file an affidavit clearly stating when and where rent w. e. f. 8. 3. 1998 had been deposited along with proof of the same. In case of arrears the petitioner will indicate how and when he intends to clear the same and he will pay substantial amount on or before the next date of hearing. He was also to indicate whether electricity and water bills and welfare association bills were paid till date and furnish proof thereof. It was noted that Rs. 24000/- was to paid to the residents Welfare Association (RWA ). On the next date. e. , 30. 1. 2005 the petitioner sought more time for complying with the order on the ground that details of payments were not available. It was noted that Rs. 24000/- was to paid to the residents Welfare Association (RWA ). On the next date. e. , 30. 1. 2005 the petitioner sought more time for complying with the order on the ground that details of payments were not available. The High Court disbelieved this and directed the petitioner to file affidavit within 10 days subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- and to make payment to the RWA within 10 days and file proof of payment of electricity and water bills. On 16. 2. 2006 cost of Rs. 2000/- was paid. Since the petitioner had not given copy of the affidavit to the respondent-plaintiff he was directed to give copy within one week. ( 7 ) ON the next date. e. , 27. 2. 2006 it was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 59500/- (Rs. 57,800/- + current rent of Rs. 1700/-) was payable by the petitioner from 8. 4. 2003 to 7. 2. 2006 and that rent from 8. 3. 1998 to 7. 8. 1999 stood deposited in the court of rent Controller from time to time. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner would clear the maintenance dues of the Housing Society and also pay the electricity bill within 10 days. The petitioner was directed to make payment of substantial amount towards arrears on or before the next date of hearing. On 10. 3. 2006 it is recorded that despite the assurances only rs. 10000/- was paid to the authorities towards electricity charges as part payment. Copy of the electricity bill/receipt was filed. ( 8 ) AS regards payment to the Welfare association it was alleged that the Society/ association was defunct and that there were disputes. Last opportunity was given to deposit the admitted amount of arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation within four weeks and deposit Rs. 15000/- for the welfare Society charges with the Registrar general of this Court and clear the balance of electricity bill within four weeks. It was made clear that if the order was not complied with, adverse inference would be drawn. ( 9 ) ON the next date. e. , 1. 5. 2006 the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff informed that the earlier orders were not complied with. The petitioner then sought time to engage a new counsel and paid rs. It was made clear that if the order was not complied with, adverse inference would be drawn. ( 9 ) ON the next date. e. , 1. 5. 2006 the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff informed that the earlier orders were not complied with. The petitioner then sought time to engage a new counsel and paid rs. 10000/- (part payment) towards arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation. Again opportunity was granted to comply with the earlier orders failing with adverse inference was to be drawn. The petitioner submitted that he had filed an affidavit regarding payments made from time to time. He was directed to give copy of the affidavit to the Court Master to be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent, but he did not and rather sent a few pages only of his affidavit and the documents through courier to the learned counsel for the respondent. On 15. 5. 2006 on protest of the learned counsel for the respondent, the said pages were returned to the petitioner with directions to supply complete copy. On that date he paid only Rs. 3400/- (part payment) towards arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation which were accepted without prejudice by learned counsel for the respondent, with the protest that even admitted amount as directed by the court had not been paid. The matter was then posted for arguments and about the arrears. Arguments were heard in part and even on the next date. e. , on 23. 5. 2006 the petitioner did not pay any amount of arrears, despite above said repeated directions. ( 10 ) THE above facts and circumstances and the order sheets show that the petitioner has displayed an arrogant conduct in the High court. He has disobeyed the High Court orders. Such an attitude in the court, in my view, cannot be encouraged. It was clarified to the petitioner that if he does not comply with the court's order adverse inference would be drawn against him, but despite four opportunities the petitioner remained adamant not to comply with the High Court order. ( 11 ) DESPITE the above mentioned defiant and rather contemptuous conduct of the petitioner-defendant, I have examined the impugned order dated 21. 3. 205 and order dated 2. 7. 2005. Perusal of the file shows that on 21. 3. ( 11 ) DESPITE the above mentioned defiant and rather contemptuous conduct of the petitioner-defendant, I have examined the impugned order dated 21. 3. 205 and order dated 2. 7. 2005. Perusal of the file shows that on 21. 3. 2005 the petitioner was not present in the trial court at the first call (may be between 10. 00 to 10. 30 a. m. ). He did not appear at the second call at 11. 50 a. m. and appeared only at the third call at 12. 30 p. m. and sought a pass over. Again at 1. 25 p. m. he sought another pass-over and the matter could be heard at 2. 10 p. m. The written statement was presented but copy was not given to the learned counsel for the plaintiff. At that stage the learned counsel for the plaintiff objected* that the written statement was not filed within the time extended by the court and submitted that the defence be struck off. This prayer was opposed by learned counsel for the defendant. After examining the provisions of law and noting that ex- parte decree was passed, which was set aside on application of the defendant and two opportunities were given for filing written statement but he did not file written statement and no special reasons for not filing were given. There being no special reason or circumstances before the court for again extending the period for filing the written statement, in my view, the trial court has committed no illegality or gross irregularity in passing the impugned order. ( 12 ) SINCE the order dated 21. 3. 2005 was not challenged within the limitation period, it appears that the defendant thought of a device to move an application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order dated 21. 3. 2005. The learned trial court judge saw through the tactic of the defendant and noted that the defendant was in fact seeking review of the order dated 21. 3. 2005 after the limitation for filing review application had expired. The trial court did not believe the contention (as an after thought) that the defendant could not hear about the time fixed by the court for filing written statement. 3. 2005 after the limitation for filing review application had expired. The trial court did not believe the contention (as an after thought) that the defendant could not hear about the time fixed by the court for filing written statement. The trial court judge has again noted the history of the case and the delaying tactics of the defendant and how the defendant was accommodated due to illness of his father, but still the defendant did not file the written statement within the extended time; The trial court did not notice any error apparent on the face of the record and, in my view, rightly dismissed the application. ( 13 ) I may mention here that the courts do accommodate the litigants in case of any illness in the family of the litigants or tragedy in the family of the litigants but this accommodation cannot be exploited to become a lever for intentionally delaying the disposal of a case and for harassing the opposite party. A litigant who shows a respectful conduct to the court and moves in the litigation with honesty and sincerity gets the judicial discretion based on sound legal principles but a litigant who tries to be over clever or repeatedly defies the court's order and leisurely appears in the court or as and when he likes, in my view, brings down the dignity of the court and does not deserve any judicial discretion or sympathy from the court. ( 14 ) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances, I find the impugned orders to be well reasr I do not find any illegality, gross irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders so as to invite interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure. ( 15 ) KEEPING in view the conduct of the petitioner-defendant in the trial court and in the High Court, I dismiss the petition with rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. The trial court is directed to dispose of the pending applications and the main suit within three months. If the trial court finds that any application is frivolous or vexatious, the same be dismissed with heavy and exemplary costs. ( 16 ) NOTHING said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of any pending applications or the main case. Lower court file be sent back immediately. If the trial court finds that any application is frivolous or vexatious, the same be dismissed with heavy and exemplary costs. ( 16 ) NOTHING said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of any pending applications or the main case. Lower court file be sent back immediately. Parties are directed to appear before the lower court on 15. 7. 2006, the date already fixed in the trial court. The Laws_Super