Delhi High Court
T.N. Seshan vs United News on 10 December, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR 1994 Delhi 179, (1994) 107 PLR 71, 1994 RLR 63
Author: M Narain
Bench: M Narain
JUDGMENT
Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 R.I, 0.8 R.5, 0.8 R.10. of the C.P.C., read with Chapter Vi Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules, for pronouncement of judgment.
(2) The facts giving rise to this application are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for defamation, seeking recovery of damages of rupees one crore against the defendant United News Agency, for having published a report which according to the plaintiff, defamed him.
(3) The suit was filed on 24.08.1992 and re-filed on 29.8.1992. Summons were issued by the Registrar on 2.9.1992, directing on that date that the matter be listed before the JR/DR on 19.11.1292. It is asserted that despite provision? of Q, 8 R. 1, written state- ment was not filed before the first hearing on 19.11.1992.
(4) When the matter came up on 19.11.92 before the J.R., the Advocates were on strike, and the J.R. passed the following order :- The Advocates are not attending the courts today. Defendant has been served and power of attorney on behalf of the defendant in favor of Mr. T L. Garg, Advocate, has been filed and is on record. The defendant will file written statement within 4 weeks with advance copy thereof to the counsel for the plaintiff, who will file replication thereto within another four weeks--.
(5) By the said order the w/s was required to be filed within four weeks, and advance copy was required to be furnished to the counsel for the plaintiff.
(6) It is stated in the application that as w/s was not filed, the counsel for the plaintiff wrote a letter to the counsel for the deft. on 29.12.1992, saying no w/s has been filed, requiring him to do so. The counsel for the plaintiff even sent registered remainder letter, that was refused, and returned to the plaintiff. It is also stated in the application that in view of the provisions of Chapter Vi Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (O.S.) Rules, in the absence of an application setting forth sufficient reasons for extension of time, time should not be extended for filing w/s.
(7) Greater details are set out in the replication. Paras 2 (A) to (F) of the replication show the efforts made by the plaintiff to get the deft. to file w/s. Number of times counsel for the plaintiff to file the w/s, and number of times counsel for the plaintiff complied with the requisition of the counsel for the deft. to give "legible copies of the plaint" to the defts.
(8) I find no reason not to disbelieve the statement in the application and the replication filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that on the date fixed for filing of the w/s, 19.11.1992. before the J.R. was communicated to the representative of the deft. who was present in Court, by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of this communication, it would have been right for the deft. to have filed w/s on the date fixed. 1994. Rajdhani Law Reporter 66
(9) To my mind non-appearance of the counsel before the J R. cannot confer any benefit upon the counsel who chose not to appear before him, owing to the fact that lawyers were on strike, and no advantage thereof ought to be taken in the matter of non-filing of the w/s. The representative of the deft. knew that w/s was required to be filed within 4 weeks on 19.11.1992. Yet w/s not filed.
(10) NON-APPEARANCE of counsel is no reason for the party not to comply with the order of filing written statement, especially when the order requiring filing of the w/s is known to, or communicated to the party.
(11) It is clear from the order passed by J.R. on 12.4.1993 that the counsel for the plaintiff did not appear herself before the J.R. on that date. In her place, Mr. Mannan, Advocate had appeared. He agreed to supply another copy of the plaint within three weeks, as ordered by the J.R. This cannot lead to the conclusion that the plaint was illegible, as contended by the deft. Deft. has shown me the plaint, it is legible, it is the annexures- some of the photo copies of newspaper reports that are not very clear.
(12) Counsel for the deft. are taking advantage of the fact that there was some delay in providing copy of the plaint after the order dated 12.4.1993, and, therefore, they justified non-filing of the w/s till it was filed wi'hin three weeks of supply of the copy.
(13) To my mind, the conduct of the deft. in non-filing of the w/s is evasive and unbecoming. In any case. Rule 3 Chapter Vi has not been complied with by the deft. No application has been filed for condensation of delay.
(14) Dr. Swamy, cited (Modula India vs. Kamalkshya Singh Dass), in support of her contentions that if the pro- visions of Order Viii Rule 10 are invoked, still some residuary rights, as mentioned in the judgment, are available to the deft. and no prejudice will be caused.
(15) Inasmuch I am not passing any order under 0. 8 R. 10 Civil Procedure Code ., decreeing the suit, as prayed for in this aplication, I need not apply that judgment to this application.
(16) The aforesaid conduct of the deft. has delayed the proceedings in this case consider- ably, which, in my view, justifies imposition of costs for the delay which has been occasioned in filing w/s, which was filed on 13.5.1993, the suit having been filed on 24.8 1992 and re-filed on 29.08.1992. I think that in the facts and circumstances of the case, while imposing costs on the deft. in the sum of Rs. 2,500.00, I decline to pass the decree prayed for.
