Telangana High Court
Shaik Saleem vs Syed Shah Ali Akbar Nizamuddin ... on 29 December, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.777 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the
trial Court in I.A.No.394 of 2021 in O.S.No.44 of 2018.
2. Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.44 of 2018 for declaration and
mandatory injunction against the first defendant, Telangana
State Waqf Board, the District Collector and the Chief
Commissioner of Land Administration. During the pendency of
the proceedings, first defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.394 of
2021 to set aside the forfeiture order dated 23.08.2019 against
him and to permit him to file Written Statement. The trial Court
after hearing arguments of both sides allowed the application on
condition to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- to the District Legal
Services Authority, Hyderbad and also to file Written Statement
on or before 21.01.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, present
Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the plaintiff on
24.03.2022.
3. Plaintiff mainly contended that the reason stated by
defendant No.1 in I.A.No.394 of 2021 before the trial Court is
that he was out of station and was unable to file his Written
Statement within time, but he filed Exs.R.2 & R.3 (which are
marked with consent) prove that he was residing at Hyderabad
during the relevant period and as such the plea that he is out of
station is false and created. He further stated that the trial
Court observed that the delay is to be condoned in view of the
pandemic during the relevant period, but the forfeiture order for
not filing the Written Statement is passed on 23.08.2019 and
the first lock down in India was imposed on 23.03.2020 i.e, after
seven months from the date of the said order, as such the
reasoning of the trial Court is not proper and therefore
requested this Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court in
I.A.No.394 of 2021 in O.S.No.44 of 2018.
4. Heard arguments of both sides.
5. The learned Counsel for the defendant No.1 stated that as
per the direction of the trial Court, he not only filed Written
Statement but also paid costs within time much after filing of
the Written Statement this C.R.P is filed, as such this Civil
Revision Petition itself is not maintainable.
6. He relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors 1in
which it was held that the time limit of 90 days as prescribed by
the proviso to Order VIII rule 1 of C.P.C is mandatory or
directory and the power of Court to extend time for filing the
Written Statement beyond the time schedule is not completely
taken away. He also relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Kalra Vs. Raj Kishan
Chabra, in which it was held that the delay in filing the Written
Statement could very well be compensated with costs but
denying the benefit of filing of the Written Statement is
unreasonable.
7. Admittedly, suit is filed for declaration, in fact there was
much delay in filing the Written Statement and therefore the
trial Court considering the delay, imposed costs of Rs.10,000/-
but to give an opportunity to the 1st defendant to contest the
matter and to dispose of the suit on merits gave an opportunity
to file the Written Statement and accordingly he filed Written
Statement and also paid costs. Therefore, this Civil Revision
Petition has no merits and is liable to be set aside.
(2005) 4 SCC 480
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 29.12.2022
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 777 of 2022
DATED: 29.12.2022
TRI
