Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/1/2019 on 30 December 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.:01 of 2019 Decided on: 30.12.2019. Roshan Lal .…Petitioner. Versus Jat Mal and others …Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. R.P Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Adv. for respondent No. 1 to 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
As per report of the Registry, steps have not been taken for the service of respondent No. 4(c). At this stage, Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Counsel submits that said respondent be ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents as he is not a necessary party for the adjudication of the present petition as his name is not recorded in the Parivar Register. On the oral request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, name of said respondent is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.
2. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner/plaintiff has challenged order dated 22.11.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court, vide which, objection of the plaintiff qua written statement of the defendants being taken on record belatedly, stands dismissed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the act of the learned Trial Court, whereby it has permitted the written statement to be taken on record, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as by doing so learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that as the written statement was not filed within the statutory period, learned Trial Court was having no authority to take the same on record.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that there was no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 22.11.2018, which stands assailed before this Court for the reason that the learned Trial Court was well within its right to accept
written statement if it was satisfied that delay in filing the same is bonafide and not intentional.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the present petition.
6. Though it is not in dispute that written statement was not filed by the defendants within the statutory period of 30 days as from the date of service of notice in the Civil Suit, as is envisaged in the Civil Procedure Code, however, when the case was listed before the learned Trial Court on 19.11.2018, on the request of learned Counsel for the defendants, last opportunity was granted to the defendants to file written statement by the learned Trial Court. When the case was listed on 20.11.2018, written statement was filed by the defendants. It is thereafter that the objection was taken by the present petitioner, who is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court that written statement would not have been taken on record by the learned Trial Court.
7. In the present case, though there is a delay on behalf of the defendants in filing the written statement, yet, it
cannot be said that delay was so inordinate so as to set aside the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 22.11.2018, vide which, it had dismissed the objection raised by the plaintiff with regard to taking on record the written statement of the defendants. It is not in dispute that the Civil Suit pertains to the year 2018, having been filed somewhere in March, 2018 and the written statement was filed by the defendants in the month of November, 2018 itself. The ends of justice would have been met if the learned Trial Court while accepting the written statement, at a belated stage, had imposed cost upon the defendants which admittedly was not done in the present case by the learned Trial Court.
8. Therefore, this petition is disposed of, though, without interfering with the order which has been passed by the learned Trial Court on 22.11.2018, which stands impugned by way of present petition, but, with the direction that defendants shall pay cost of 5,000/- to the plaintiff, and in case, said cost is not paid, then written statement filed by the defendants shall be struck off from the record. Parties through their respective Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 20.01.2020, on which date,
learned Trial Court shall give four weeks’ time to the defendants to pay cost to the plaintiff. The cost shall be paid by way of a bank draft only. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge December 30, 2019 (narender)