THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.777 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.394 of 2021 in O.S.No.44 of 2018.
2. Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.44 of 2018 for declaration and mandatory injunction against the first defendant, Telangana State Waqf Board, the District Collector and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. During the pendency of the proceedings, first defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.394 of 2021 to set aside the forfeiture order dated 23.08.2019 against him and to permit him to file Written Statement. The trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides allowed the application on condition to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Hyderbad and also to file Written Statement on or before 21.01.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the plaintiff on 24.03.2022.
3. Plaintiff mainly contended that the reason stated by defendant No.1 in I.A.No.394 of 2021 before the trial Court is 2 that he was out of station and was unable to file his Written Statement within time, but he filed Exs.R.2 & R.3 (which are marked with consent) prove that he was residing at Hyderabad during the relevant period and as such the plea that he is out of station is false and created. He further stated that the trial Court observed that the delay is to be condoned in view of the pandemic during the relevant period, but the forfeiture order for not filing the Written Statement is passed on 23.08.2019 and the first lock down in India was imposed on 23.03.2020 i.e, after seven months from the date of the said order, as such the reasoning of the trial Court is not proper and therefore requested this Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.394 of 2021 in O.S.No.44 of 2018.
4. Heard arguments of both sides.
5. The learned Counsel for the defendant No.1 stated that as per the direction of the trial Court, he not only filed Written Statement but also paid costs within time much after filing of the Written Statement this C.R.P is filed, as such this Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable. 3
6. He relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors 1in which it was held that the time limit of 90 days as prescribed by the proviso to Order VIII rule 1 of C.P.C is mandatory or directory and the power of Court to extend time for filing the Written Statement beyond the time schedule is not completely taken away. He also relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Kalra Vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, in which it was held that the delay in filing the Written Statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the Written Statement is unreasonable.
7. Admittedly, suit is filed for declaration, in fact there was much delay in filing the Written Statement and therefore the trial Court considering the delay, imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- but to give an opportunity to the 1st defendant to contest the matter and to dispose of the suit on merits gave an opportunity to file the Written Statement and accordingly he filed Written Statement and also paid costs. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition has no merits and is liable to be set aside. 1 (2005) 4 SCC 480 4 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 29.12.2022 tri 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 777 of 2022 DATED: 29.12.2022 TRI