Delhi High Court
Vivek Kumar Gupta And Anr. vs Harish Chander Malik And Anr. on 30 March, 2006
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. CM(M) 2098/2005, CM(M) 2099/2005 and CM(M) 2100/2005 seek to challenge the order dated 25.07.2005 of the Additional District Judge whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking condensation of delay in filing written statement.
2. Brief facts as noted by the learned ADJ are as follows:
...2. As a matter of fact, the civil suit in question had been pending before Ld. Predecessor court and in pursuance of the summons issued by the said court defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were served through registered AD post for 17.5.04 and Ld. Counsel for these defendants appeared on the said date and filed his vakalatnama. As per the court record it is revealed that Ld.defense Counsel also stated on 17.5.2004 that copies of documents had not been supplied and the plaintiff was directed by the court to ensure supply of the copies to the defendants to enable them to file the written statement. The case was ajourned to 14.7.04 but in the meantime, Ld. Presiding Officer of the said court retired and thereafter, the suit stood transferred to this Court. In view of the non- appearance of the parties, court notices to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were directed to be issued by this Court vide order dated 17.8.04. The said court notices issued for 25.10.04 were served on Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and their counsel but none had appeared on their behalf nor written statement was filed. Next date of hearing was 5.1.05 which was a holiday. Consequently, the case was taken up on 6.1.05. On 6.1.05 also written statement was not filed. In the meantime, on 3.2.05 plaintiff filed the aforesaid application which was ordered to be put up on the date fixed. On 18.2.05 the defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement. During the course of the pendency of the case, on 12.5.05 defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed their aforesaid application seeking condensation of delay.
3. It is contented by counsel for the petitioner that although there has been a delay in filing of the written statement no delay in the proceedings in the case has taken place. He also submits that in the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the trial court, the Supreme Court itself envisages situations where if grave injustice would be caused, is sufficient ground to allow the written statement to be filed beyond period of limitation. He also submits that the written statement was prepared and lying ready but for reasons beyond control of the petitioner the same was not filed.
4. Counsel for the respondent strongly opposes this petition. He submits that Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service in cases of the present nature and that the delay in filing written statement cannot be condoned unless proper and reasonable cause is shown. In the present case, no good cause much less a reasonable cause has been shown. Learned counsel also relies upon the same judgment of the Supreme Court and highlights the paragraphs referred to by the trial court.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment under challenge as also the judgments referred to by learned counsel. It appears to me that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not cosmetic in nature; it is a mandatory provision aiming at speedy trials; it cannot be taken lightly and in the event any discretion is exercised, the same must be on good grounds justifying the departure from the law in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. In the present case the trial court has applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
6. In that view of the matter, taking the judgment of the Supreme Court into consideration and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the order under challenge cannot be disturbed.
7. CM(M) 2098/2005, CM(M) 2099/2005, CM(M) 2100/2005 and CM.APPL.12997/2005 are dismissed.
