IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting or refusing permission to file the written statement, emphasizing the need to establish sufficient cause and absence of negligence or bona fides, and the aim of substantial justice in adjudicating matters.

JUDGMENT :

I.P. Mukerji, J.

1. Leave sought by the appellant defendant (the defendant) to file their written statement, after condonation of delay was refused by the learned single judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 12th June, 2023. The defendant appeals to this court.

2. The suit is of 1999. It was filed on 30th September, 1999. The writ of summons was served on the defendant on 28th January, 2000. They entered appearance on 3rd February, 2000. Although it is referred to in the impugned judgment and order that the defendant contested various interlocutory applications, the details are not forthcoming. What is on record is a status of the report of the suit dated 1st March, 2000 to the effect that the suit was “disposed of” on 1st March, 2000. According to them, having learnt that the suit was disposed of they did not feel it necessary to show any further interest in it.

3. It is common ground that the suit did not progress any further till 2017. On 17th January, 2017 the suit came up for trial.

4. Meanwhile, the advocate on record for the defendant changed. The present advocate on record noticed the matter in the list and informed his client. It seems to have been mentioned before the court that according to the status report the suit was disposed of on 1st March, 2000. The learned judge directed an inquiry into the matter. He sought a report from the Registrar (Listing). On 30th January, 2017 the report came. It confirmed the earlier report that the suit was according to the records disposed of on 1st March, 2000.

5. On 23rd February, 2017 the defendant made an application before the court to permit them to file their written statement. After condonation of delay in making the application it was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12th June, 2023.

6. The fact is that the application for condonation of delay to file the written statement was made more than 17 years after filing of the suit.

7. So was the learned judge right in dismissing the application or should he have, after about 25 years of institution of the suit given permission to the defendant to file their written statement?

8. The learned judge proceeded to narrate the facts with regard to progress of the suit after filing of the plaint and the authorities dealing with condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

9. The reasons why the delay was uncondonable are not forthcoming in the impugned judgment. It only says that there is “no justifiable delay”; the delay is “of 23 years”. Why the explanation of the defendant was not being accepted by the court is not forthcoming in the judgment. The learned judge has only expressed his inability to condone “23 years delay”.

10. After disposal of the application the suit was directed to appear on 5th July, 2023 as an undefended suit.

11. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant/defendant contended that there was no lack of diligence on the part of his client. Neither was there any intention to delay the suit or to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. His client had all along proceeded on the basis of the status report that the suit had been disposed of on 1st March, 2000. Hence, they did not take any steps.

12. Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent/plaintiff (the plaintiff) submitted that the status report may have been generated on 1st March, 2000 but the fact was that in spite of entering appearance on 3rd February, 2000, the defendant did not file their written statement by the stipulated time which was 21 days from the date of issue of the writ of summons (28th January, 2000) i.e. by 18th February, 2000. At that time there was no existence of the status report.

13. Before proceeding any further, it is important to discuss the law and the authorities on the subject.

14. Chapter IX Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules states that no written statement shall be filed unless appearance has been first entered. Furthermore, no written state