Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Shyam Steel Traders vs Marwari Panchayat Society on 3 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 7075 of 2012
........
M/S. Shyam Steel Traders .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
Marwari Panchayat Society .... ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nisith Kumar Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
........
05/03.11.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ
petitioner, M/S. Shyam Steel Traders is the defendant in the Title
(Eviction) Suit No.05/2011 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge,
(Jr.D.), Bokaro, wherein written statement as well as leave application
could not be filed within time, as such, on the application of the plaintiff,
Marwari Panchayat Society, dated 23.07.2012 praying to debar the
defendant from filing the written statement has been allowed by the
learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr.D.), Bokaro in Title (Eviction) Suit
No.05/2011 vide order dated 01.10.2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nisith Kumar Sahani has
submitted that petitioner/defendant has already filed written statement as
well as leave application before the Court below on 30.06.2011 and
19.08.2013, but the same have not been accepted by the Court below,
which may be accepted, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court
in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, reported in (2005) 4 SCC
480, as such, impugned order may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha
has serious objection and has submitted that the suit has been filed on the
ground of default as well as personal necessity and the matter is lingering
since 2011 because of delaying tactic adopted by the petitioner /
defendant, who is doing business in the premises. If this Court will allow
the petitioner /defendant to contest the suit allowing written statement and
leave application filed by the defendant to be accepted, then heavy cost
may be imposed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nisith Kumar Sahani has
submitted that this is a procedural delay, as such, written statement and
leave application may be allowed.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into fact
and circumstances, since the written statement has already been filed
before passing the impugned order on 01.10.2012 and the leave
application on 19.08.2013, this Court set aside the impugned order, but at
a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff / respondent within a period
of three weeks before the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall release amount
in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
However, considering the eviction suit of the year 2011, the trial
court is directed to expedite the trial by taking the case on day-to-day
basis.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
