Delhi High Court
Sh. S.L. Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 24 September, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M) No.886/2014
% 24th September, 2014
SH. S.L. GUPTA ......Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M.No.16072/2014 (condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 47 days in re-filing
of the petition is condoned.
2. The application is allowed and disposed of.
C.M. No.16071/2014 (exemption)
3. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
4. C.M. stands disposed of.
CM(M) No.886/2014
5. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated
03.4.2014 which has taken on record the written statements filed by the
defendants/respondents herein in the suit by condoning the delay.
6. The subject suit is a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of
damages of Rs.20 lacs and in which the defendants are the Central Bureau of
Investigation, Department of Personnel & Training and Sh.Ashok Kumar,
Additional DGP, Tamil Nadu Police (respondents herein).
7. The defendants in the suit were served in February 2013 and the
written statements were filed by defendant nos. 1 & 2 on 07.6.2013.
Defendant no.3 had filed the written statement earlier on 02.5.2013. Really
therefore, there is a delay just of about month to month and a half in filing of
the written statements by defendant nos. 1 & 2, and of about 2-3 weeks by
the defendant no.3. Though there is some lack of clarity, really so far as
defendant no.3 is concerned, written statement has been filed within 90 days
and the written statements have been filed by defendant nos. 1 & 2 soon
thereafter on 07.6.2013.
8. No doubt, Legislature has provided a period for filing of the written
statement by amending the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the year
2002, but it is settled law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2441 that the period
prescribed for filing of the written statement is a directory provision and
period fixed is not a mandatory period. No doubt, condonation of delay is
not automatic, but delays which are not in excess of about 4-5 months,
depending on the facts of a particular case, can, surely be routinely
condoned. The object of law of amending CPC in 2002 is not defeated by
some amount of delay in filing of the written statement, and which has to be
seen in the context that the suit itself does not get decided, as hopefully
envisaged by the Legislature, within about one year or so and where not
more than three adjournments are to be given. In fact, it ordinarily takes
more than a year for the suit to be decided and routinely adjournments are
sought and granted to both the parties in the suit.
9. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
KA
