Delhi High Court
Smt. Baljit Kaur vs Shri Yogesh Kumar And Anr on 13 November, 2014
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~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.
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
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
