Telangana High Court
K Prameela, Rr Dist 3 Others vs N.Lakshmi Devi, Hyd 10 Others on 16 April, 2021
Bench: Challa Kodanda Ram
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.963 of 2016
ORDER:
The Docket Order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Special
Sessions Judge for trial of SC & ST (POA) Act -cum- VII Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, in
unmentioned I.A in O.S.No.327 of 2011, is challenged before this
Court.
The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondents
herein are the defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of
convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed
before the trial Court.
Defendant No.1 filed an interlocutory application in the suit
O.S.No.327 of 2011 on 27.07.2015 invoking Order IX Rule 7 of CPC
seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 22.02.2012. The said
interlocutory application was not numbered by the trial Court.
Counter affidavit was filed by the plaintiffs 2 to 4 opposing the
application filed by the defendant No.1.
The trial Court passed the impugned Docket Order on
06.08.2015, which reads as under:
"Exparte order against D1 is set aside WS of D1
received no additional issues arise. Posted for
cross examination of PW1 by D1 call on 13-08-
2015."
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present civil
revision petition.
2 crp_963_2016
CKR, J
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, and the
respondents/defendants.
This is a case where the learned Additional District Judge has
grossly mis-conducted himself. The Original Record does not disclose
that the I.A. filed by the defendant No.1 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC
was not numbered. The Docket endorsement of 06.08.2015 reads as
"I.A. pending" in Blue Ink, and the Presiding Officer's Order, which is
in Green Ink, reads as extracted above.
It is to be noted that as per the Certified Copy of the Docket
Order dated 19.12.2012 provided by the trial Court vide C.A.No.126 of
2016, the right of filing of Written Statement by defendant No.1 was
forfeited on 19.12.2012 and not on 22.02.2012.
At the outset, the application was made invoking Order IX Rule
7 of CPC, and not under Order VIII Rule 1 or Rule 10 of CPC seeking to
enlarge the time for filing the Written Statement. There is no
application made seeking to enlarge time for filing of Written
Statement. At best, the impugned Docket Order dated 06.08.2015,
even assuming that the application made by defendant No.1 is to be
treated as application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, the same would
only enable defendant No.1 the benefit of participating in the suit and
does not enable him to file the Written Statement as there was no
application seeking to enlarge the time for filing the Written
Statement. Further, in the absence of any application by the
defendant No.1 seeking to enlarge the time for filing the Written
Statement, the Written Statement could not have been received by the
learned trial Judge. In that view of the matter, the Docket Order
dated 06.08.2015 is liable to be set aside.
3 crp_963_2016
CKR, J
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 before this Court pleads
that in the affidavit filed in support of the un-numbered I.A. before the
trial Court the respondent No.1 had clearly stated the reason for not
filing the Written Statement within the time allowed, and that the
reason for not filing of written statement within time was only on
account of the compromise arrived at with the deceased plaintiff No.1.
The reason sought to be put forth by the defendant No.1 for not
filing the Written Statement within the time allowed, does not inspire
the confidence of this Court for the reason that even assuming that
there is a compromise proposal being discussed with the deceased
plaintiff No.1, as per the record, the plaintiff No.1 died on 09.06.2013
and the application seeking to set aside the ex parte order was made
only on 27.07.2015. Further, the impugned Docket Order dated
06.08.2015 is bereft of any reasoning.
It is well settled that a Written Statement cannot be received at
a belated stage. A reference can be made to SCG Contracts (India)
Private Limited v. K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Private
Limited1; Mohammed Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad2; Desh Raj v.
Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms.Rohini3; Y. Venkata
Rama v. Yellaboyani Venkatamma @ Y. Munivenkatamma4; and
Atcom Technologies Limited v. Y.A. Chunawala and Company5.
In view of the settled legal position through a catena of
judgments on the point, it is not necessary for this Court to enumerate
and discuss each and every decision. Suffice it to say that though the
Court has discretion to accept the Written Statement, the Court is
(2019) 12 SCC 210
(2009) 3 SCC 513
Civil Appeal No.433 of 2020 dt.20.01.2020
2018 (3) ALD 561
(2018) 6SCC 639
4 crp_963_2016
CKR, J
required to judiciously exercise the discretion after satisfying itself that
the reasons stated are germane and that there was justifiable cause
for the defendant for not adhering to the timeframe prescribed for
filing the written statement.
In the facts of the present case, the impugned Docket Order
dated 06.08.2015, being bereft of reasons, is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, and the Docket
Order dated 06.08.2015 is set aside. There shall be no order as to
costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this civil revision
petition, shall stand closed.
The Registrar General of this Court shall take note of the
irregularity committed by the Presiding Officer and apprise him of the
legal way of adjudicating the matters.
____________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
16th April, 2021
ksm
5 crp_963_2016
CKR, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.963 of 2016
16th April, 2021
ksm
