Runs Mon vs Simpole
2021 Latest Caselaw 16290 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
                          OP(C) NO. 34 OF 2020
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 77/2018 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI,
                               MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/S:

           RUNS MON
           AGED 43 YEARS
           S/O.K.T.ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR, K.P.A PETROLEUM RELIANCE
           OUTLET, NILAMBUR AMSOM AND TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679329

           BY ADVS.
           K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
           SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI



RESPONDENT/S:

           SIMPOLE
           AGED 36 YEARS
           S/O.VARKEY, POTTAKKAL HOUSE, VADAPURAM, MAMPAD AMSOM,
           NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679329

           BY ADV SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)




     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 34 OF 2020
                                   2



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of August, 2021

The challenge in this original petition is against Ext.P3 order

by which the Court below condoned the delay in filing the written

statement and accepted the written statement on payment of

cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the

question as to whether written statement filed beyond the period

prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 can be accepted, is finally

settled by the Five Judge's Bench ruling of Honorable Supreme

Court in New India assurance Company Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose

Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (2) KHC 274]'. Therein, the Apex

Court has held that the rigor of filing written statement within

the stipulated time is strictly applicable in cases coming under

the Commercial Courts Act and that, as far as the Code of Civil

Procedure is concerned the court is vested with discretion to

decide whether the written statement is to be accepted or not.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondent points out that the

issue was first decided by the Honorable Supreme Court in Desh OP(C) NO. 34 OF 2020

Raj Vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [2020 KHC

6047] and has been referred to in Hilli Multi Purpose Cold

Storage (supra) .

The Counsel's being in unison that the Court below is

vested with the discretion to extend the time prescribed under

Order 8 Rule 1 and the Court below having exercised such

discretion and having condoned the delay in filing the written

statement by imposing cost, I see no reason to interfere with the

order.

Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G ARUN JUDGE

SJ OP(C) NO. 34 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 34/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.484/2019 IN O.S.NO.77/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 21.06.2019

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.484/2019 IN O.S.NO.77/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 20.07.2019

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.484/2019 IN O.S.NO.77/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 27.08.2019

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.484/2019 IN O.S.NO.77/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 30.08.2019