Delhi High Court
Jai Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 7 February, 2005
Author: S Agarwal
Bench: S Agarwal
ORDER
S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. By this application under Order 47 Rule1 read with Sections 148 and 151, CPC, defendant Delhi Development Authority if seeking review of the order dated 16.12.2002, whereby defendant's right to file the written statement was closed.
2. Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,28,68,176.00. After service of summons, defendant put in appearance on 28.7.2000 and were granted time to file written statement. On 23.2.2001 defendant filed IA.2083/2001 under Order VI Rule 5, CPC,seeking better and further particulars (details) regarding claim Nos. 6 and 8 to enable it to defend the claims effectively. Learned counsel for the plaintiff accepted notice of the application and sought time to file reply No reply was filed to the application and on 3.8.2001 this application was allowed and plaintiff was directed to supply better particulars within four weeks. The suit was ordered to be listed for further proceedings.
3. On 16.12.2002 the suit was listed before this Court. The perusal of the order sheet of this date reveals that on that date learned counsel for the plaintiff again argued the said application (IA.2083/2001) under Order VI Rule, CPC, of the defendant, and submitted that claim No.6 deals with escalation clause and that plaintiff would be relying on cost indices issued by the Government of India; that with regard to claim No.8 plaintiff would be placing reliance on the measurement book being maintained by the defendant; and that plaintiff is not in a position to give any more particulars. On the basis of this explanation, the application was disposed of.
4. It may be noted here that learned counsel for the parties did not bring to the notice of this Court, that defendant's application for better particulars was already allowed and that plaintiff has been directed to supply better particulars, and there was no question of fresh arguments or disposal of this application. In the suit it was ordered that defendant has not filed the written statement despite several opportunities and right to file the written statement was closed. Defendant (DDA) has prayed for review of this order.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that earlier the matter was being handled by Sh.V.K. Sharma, advocate. The defendant changed its counsel, who could not inspect the record, therefore, appropriate assistance on the said application could not be rendered on 16.12.2002; and regrets the error. It was argued that in any case it was only on 16.12.2002 that plaintiff made the submission that he was not in a position to give better particulars, therefore, right to file written statement could not have been closed on that date and the defendant should have been granted at least one opportunity to file the same within 30 days. It is argued that defendant was, in fact, labouring under the bonafide belief that they were required to file the written statement by 14.1.2003, i.e. within the period of four weeks from 16.12.2002. The defendants out of abundant caution also filed an application under Rule 3 Chapter VI of Original Side Delhi High Court Rules for extension of time to file written statement (IA No 4312/2003). It is further argued that if the court was apprised of the correct facts, defendant's right to file the written statement may not have been closed.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, opposing the application, vehemently argued that the defendants have been deliberately delaying the progress of the case; they failed to file the written statement despite several opportunities. On 28.7.2000 defendant was granted six weeks' time to file the written statement, which was not done. Again, on 10.10.2000 they were granted six weeks' time to file the written statement; instead of filing the written statement, the defendants filed an application on 23.2.2001 under Order VI Rule 5, CPC, seeking better particulars. Notice of this application was accepted by the plaintiff on 5.3.2001 and time was granted to file reply. As noted above, this application was disposed of on 3.8.2001 with a direction to the plaintiff to furnish better particulars within four weeks. On 16.12.2002, a statement to the effect that claim No.6 deals with escalation clause and that plaintiff would be relying on cost indices issued by the Government of India; that with regard to claim No.8 plaintiff would be placing reliance on the measurement book being maintained by the defendant; and that plaintiff is not in a position to give any more particulars. The said application, for better particulars was finally disposed of on 16.12.2002. The Court considered the conduct of the defendants and rightly closed their defense. The order has become final and no ground for review is made out.
7. In this case, as noted above, plaintiff was directed on 3.8.2002 to give better particulars. He did not furnish better particulars and on 16.12.2002 (after more than one year and four months) for the first time made a statement that he is unable to furnish better particulars. It can only be thereafter that defendant's limitation to file written statement shall commence. There is an error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the application is allowed and order dated 16.12.2002 closing defendant's right to file written statement is recalled. Written statement filed by the defendant is taken on record.
Application stands disposed of.
