Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arvind Kumar vs Amitesh Shah And Others on 2 April, 2025
1
( 2025:HHC:8798 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No.103 of 2024
Date of Decision : 02.04.2025
Arvind Kumar
...... Petitioner
Versus
Amitesh Shah and others ......Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Nemo.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
The present petition has been filed seeking following
substantive relief:-
"That orders dated 18-11-2023 and 3-04-2024 being
irregular be set aside and direction be issued to hear
the application of the petitioner for extension of time
filed along with the written statement in view of the
facts and circumstances in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
documents appended along with present petition.
3. The present petition is defendant No.1 before the trial
Court. On 18.11.2023, the plaintiff before the trial Court (respondent
No.1) was granted an opportunity to file replication to the written
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
( 2025:HHC:8798 )
statement filed on behalf of defendants No.2 and 3. Insofar as
defendant No.4 (respondent No.4) is concerned, time was granted to
the said party to file written statement.
4. Insofar as defendant No.1, i.e., present petitioner is
concerned, in the impugned order dated 18.11.2023, it has been
stated that the defence of the present petitioner is struck off as no
application has been placed on record seeking enlargement of time
for filing written statement on behalf of the present petitioner before
the trial Court.
5. However, from a perusal of the record appended along
with present petition, specifically Annexure P-2, it is evident that an
application under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code for
extension of time to file written statement and reply was filed on behalf
of the present petitioner before the trial Court. From the endorsement
made upon the said application, it is evident that a copy of the said
application had been received on 18.11.2023. The said application is
also dated 18.11.2023. Interestingly, rather than taking the application
for consideration on 18.11.2023, the same was ordered to be put up on
03.04.2024.
6. Hence, to the extent order dated 18.11.2023 records that
no application seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement
on behalf of the present petitioner (defendant No.1) was filed, is
actually incorrect. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 03.04.2024.
( 2025:HHC:8798 )
On the said date, application filed by the present petitioner seeking
enlargement of time along with written statement presented by the
present petitioner were both returned back on the ground that the
defence of the present petitioner had been struck off vide the previous
order dated 18.11.2023. Besides the aforesaid, vide order dated
03.04.2024, time was granted to respondent No.4 (defendant No.4) for
filing written statement.
7. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstance of the
case at hand, it is evident that till 03.04.2024, written statement on
behalf of all the defendants had not been filed. Besides the aforesaid,
on 18.11.2023, rather than taking up the application for extension of
time filed on behalf of the present petitioner (defendant No.1), the
same was listed for 03.04.2024, i.e., next date of hearing.
8. A perusal of the application filed on 18.11.2023 seeking
extension of time for filing of written statement on behalf of the present
petitioner (defendant No.1) reflects that sufficient cause/bonafide
reason was stated in the application for seeking extension of time in
filing the written statement. Had the same been considered on
18.11.2023, the trial Court in either accepting or rejecting the same,
would have been required to pass a reasoned order. Non
consideration of the application filed for seeking an extension of time in
filing written statement on behalf of present petitioner (defendant No.1)
reflects a non exercise of jurisdiction. The failure to exercise
( 2025:HHC:8798 )
jurisdiction by deferring the application for the next date, i.e.,
03.04.2024 has caused grave prejudice to the present petitioner
(defendant No.1).
9. The Courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with
the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the
institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort
which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in
the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. The Courts have to be
diligent and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice
dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law.
10. For the aforesaid reasons and the fact that the
proceedings are at a stage where written statement was still to be filed
by respondent No.4 (defendant No.4), therefore, present petition is
allowed and impugned orders dated 18.11.2023 and 03.04.2024 are
quashed and set aside.
11. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court
on 16.04.2025, on which date, written statement shall be filed by the
present petitioner (defendant No.1). It is made clear that no further
opportunity shall be granted to the present petitioner (defendant No.1).
12. In view of the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed
of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
April 02, 2025 (KS) Judge
