$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1194/2009
% Date of decision :13th November, 2014
SMT. BALJIT KAUR ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Kamlakshi, Advocate
versus
SHRI YOGESH KUMAR AND ANR. ..... Defendant
Through: Ms.Sapna Sinha, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J. (Oral)
IA.5826/2014
1. This is an application for condonation of 5 days' delay in filing the OA.No.47/2014.
2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the OA is condoned.
3. Application stands disposed of.
OA.No.47/2014
4. This is an appeal in Chamber filed against the order of the Joint Registrar dated 20.2.2014 by which right of the defendant to file written statement was closed. Counsel for the appellant submits that the only ground on which the applicant relies for not filing the written statement is oversight. CS(OS)No.1194/2009 Page 1 of 3
5. I have perused the order of learned Joint Registrar dated 20.2.2014, in which the learned Joint Registrar has noticed that the defendant was proceeded ex parte on 25.01.2010 and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed on 15.11.2011. The Joint Registrar has also noticed that vide order of 10.10.2013 the ex parte order dated 25.01.2010 was set aside on an application filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the defendant was granted four weeks time to file written statement from 10.10.2013.
6. I find no infirmity in the order of the Joint Registrar dated 20.2.2014. It may also be noticed that the defendant had the knowledge of filing of the suit by the plaintiff at least from the date when the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by him i.e. in September, 2012. Sufficient time has been granted.
7. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. : (2005) 4 SCC 480, that extension of time in filing the written statement should not be granted casually and as a matter of routine; and it should be granted only in cases where extreme hardship has been expressed or some cogent reasons for non-filing of the written statement has been explained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"....
Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 has to be honoured. The Defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the CS(OS)No.1194/2009 Page 2 of 3 writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defence and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the Court. The extension of time sought for by the Defendant from the court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the Defendant and also recorded in writing by the Court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the Defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended."
(emphasis supplied)
8. The approach of the defendant in the present case appears to be extremely casual, which is evident from reading of the appeal in Chamber in which the only ground for non-filing of the written statement is the oversight by the counsel. The appeal is without any merit. Accordingly, the Appeal in Chamber is dismissed.
CS(OS) 1194/2009
9. Counsel for the plaintiff prays that a decree be passed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.
10. List on 5.12.2014 for arguments.
G.S.SISTANI, J NOVEMBER 13, 2014 ssn CS(OS)No.1194/2009 Page 3 of 3