CRP/3432/2023 of M/s. Jai Bhagwan Chemicals Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs M/s. Fortune Motors Private Limited., on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orderdated26.09.2023 in I.A. No. 655 of 2023 in O.S. No.377 of 2019by the Principal District and Sessions Judge - Cum - FamilyCourt, at Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District, as being illegaland contrary to settled principles of law

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and pelused therecord.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed foreviction and recovery of arrears. The rcspondent herein is thedefendant in the suit

4. The respondent herein had filed the underlying applicationunder Order lX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as'the Code') with a prayer to set aside theex-parte order dated 07 .06.2023. The petitioner herein filed itscounter opposing the said applicatior.r.

5. The Court below [after ][hearing ][both ][sides, ][allowed ][the]application obserwing [that ][the ][respondent ][herein ought ][to ][be]granted an opportunity [to ][contest ][the ][case' ][Aggrieved by ][the ][same]the present revision [is ][prefered.]

6. Learned counsel [for ][the ][petitioner ][contends ][that' ][the ][Court]below erred in [casually attowing ][the ][application ][without ][taking]note of the fact that [the ][written ][statement ][was ][filed ][after four ][years]from the date [of ][institution of ][the ][suit']

7. I have taken note [of ][the ][submission ][made']

Shorn of of [[unnecessal'y ]][[details, ][it ][is to ][be ][seen ][that ]][[it ][is to ][be ][seen ][that ]][[is to ][be ][seen ][that ]][[be ][seen ][that ]][[seen ][that ]][[that ]][[the]]

8. Shorn of of [[unnecessal'y ]][[details, ][it ][is to ][be ][seen ][that ]][[it ][is to ][be ][seen ][that ]][[is to ][be ][seen ][that ]][[be ][seen ][that ]][[seen ][that ]][[that ]][[the]]petitioner herein [was ][set-ex ][parte ][on ][01 ]['06 '2023 ]' [and ][the]underlying application [to ][set ][aside ][the ][said ][ex ][parte ][order ][was]filed [on ][19.06.2023' ][Though the petitioner ][herein ][had]immediately contended that [the ][respondent ][is ][being ][allowed ][to ][file ][his ][written]statement after [nearly ][lbur ][years ][tiom ][the ][date ][of ][the ][institution ][of]thesuit,itistobeobservedthatthepetitionerhereinhadstatedthathe was unable to [file ][his written ][statement ][by ][virtue ][of ][the ][Global]Pandemic of [COVID ]- [19. ]['Ihat ][apart, ][admittedly the ][application]filed under [order ][7 ][Rule ][11 ][of ][the Code, ][1908 ][in ][I'A'No' ][579 ][of]

2020 was decided only on 02.02.2022. That aparr, admittedly thesuit is still at the stage of frarning of issues.suit is still at the stage of frarning of issues.

9. It is well settled that procedural laws are designed tofacilitate [justice, ]and not to frustrate the ends of justice. TheSupreme Courl in Kusum vs. Kanchan Devi and Ors', whileholding that the court has discretion to allow a written statement tobe filed beyond the stipulated period of 90 days, has observed asunder:

"6. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of iustice. The lansuaseemnloed bv the draftsman ofDrocessual law mav be liberal or strinsentbut the fact remains that the obiect of prescribing procedure is to advancethe cause of iustice. In an adversarial svste m no party should ordinarilvbe denied the opoortunitv of DarticiDatin{r in the process of iusticedisoensation. Unless compelled by express and specihc language of theStatute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactmentought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the courthelpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends ofjustice.

The mortality ofjustice at the hands of law troubles a Judge's conscienceand points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.

The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpowersubstantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule thatprocedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justicecompels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act exdebito justice where the tragic sequel otherwise would be whollyinequitable. - Justice is the goal ofjurisprudence - processual, as much as 'lzoosloscczos Sen v. [State ][of]

substantive. [(See Sushil ][Kumar]BiharMANU/SC [I ][OO28 ][I ][19t ][5 : ][ [1 ][975]3 ][SCR942]

procedure. He [has onlY ][the]No person [has ][a ][vested ][right ][in ][any course ][of]for the time [being ][bY ][or ][for]riglrt of [prosecution or ][defence ][in ][the manner]the Court in [which ][the ][case ][is ][pending, and ][if'][ by ][an ][Act ][of ][Parliament]the mode of Procedure [is ][altered,][ he ][has ][no ][oth][er ][righl ][than ][to ][Proceed]according to [the altered ][mode ][(See ][Blyth v. ][Bly'th (1966 ][(t) ][Atl ][Fl ][R ][524](HL)rocedural law[ should not ][o][rdinaril]be construed [as][ mandato]the Drocedural [law ][is][ alwav][s subservieu][ t ][to ][and ][is ][in aid ][to ][i][ustice. ][Anv]f [justice ]is [not ][to]interpretation [which ][eludes ][or ][frustrates the ][recipient ][o]. Rajesh [and]be followed. [(See ][Shreenath ][and ][Anr' ][v]OTs.MANU/SC/028611998 [: ][1998]2SCR709

al lats no lo2lnt but aannotorucnutaidus. Prouralcrlnsre thhandmaiandot the mistsalu bricannot a[rcsistant]in thedistrationofiustice."

(emPhasis suPPlied)

l0.Therefore,thisCourlfindsnoin{irmitywiththeorderoftheCourt below [granting the ][respondent an ][opportunity ][to ][participate]in the suit.

11. Notwithstanding [the ][same, ][this ][Coult ][is ][of ][tlre ][view ][that ][the]caused [to ][the petitionel ][herein ][can ][be ][compensated by]prejudice way of costs.

12. Accordingly, [the ][Civil ][Revision ][Petition ][is ][disposed ][of' ][The]order dated [26-09.2023 ][in ][I'A' No' ][655 ][of ][2023 ][in ][O S' ][No'377 ][of]2019 by the Principal [District ][and ][Sessions Judge ][- ][Cum ][- ][Family]Court, at Malkajgiri, [Medchal ][Malkajgiri District ][is ][sustained]

\

I

subject to the payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees TwentyThousand Only) by the respondent herein to petitioner hereinwithin a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.Thousand Only) by the respondent herein to petitioner hereinwithin a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shallstand closed.

S D /. [PA: ]SBTIXIB#T,EiRIX

q2--"'SECTION [OFFICER]

/TTRUE [COPY//]

To,I The Principal Diskict and Sessions Judge-cum-Family [Court ][at ][Malkaigiri']

Medchal [Malkaigiri.DistrtcrFirm, ]Advocate [OPUCI2. One [CC ][to M/s' ][Pillix Law]

3. Two [CD ][CoPies]plpI.,{Y

s

..i .

*!{l,*

li &ffi'&rriffitA-,

ffi ffi

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDER

CRP.No.3432 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE C.R.P.W

1t\ES ATI€.(Aq9j o2APR 202[2a.a'+*t oes patcH[gO]

,:i4]lGE;t $..,"ffi::S,'.:r'itF.r( t-, ilgirffi.,',; rc