Back
1984 Supreme(Del) 143
High Court Of Delhi
PANDIT NARAIN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 318 of 1981
Decided On : 05/30/1984
D.N.NIJHAVAN, DIVAN NAUBAT RAI, U.L.VATVANI
O. 27, R. 5 of the Code does not limit or even deal with the question of filing the written statement. That provision is O. 8, R. 1.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING WRITTEN STATEMENT', 'SUBJECT': 'CIVIL PROCEDURE', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['O. 5, R. 6', 'O. 8, R. 1', 'O. 10, Rr. 1 and 2', 'O. 27, R. 5', 'S. 122', 'S. 129', 'Chap. VI, R. 2', 'Chap. VI, R. 3', 'Chap. VI, R. 4', 'Chap. VIII, R. 1']}
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority were defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiff. The Union of India requested time to file its written statement and was granted adjournments for this purpose. The plaintiff argued that the time to be granted to the Union of India could not be extended for more than two months because of the amendment to O. 27, R. 5, Civil P. C. in 1976. The Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority filed their written statements along with applications praying for condoning the delay in filing the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that O. 27, R. 5 of the Code does not limit or even deal with the question of filing the written statement. That provision is O. 8, R. 1. O. 27. R. 5 is concerned only with the fixing of a date of appearance on behalf of the Government when service is effected through the Government pleader and with nothing else. There is no bar to the Court extending the time for filing the written statement in a case where the Union of India or any Government is the defendant: such a defendant has to be treated exactly similar to any other defendant.
Issues: ['Whether the provisions contained in R. 5 of O. 27, Civil P. C. , bar the jurisdiction of the Court to extend time to the Union of India for filing the written statement for a period beyond two months in the aggregate after the first date fixed for the filing of the written statement?', 'Whether the time could be extended for filing the written statement in exercise of the powers under S. 148 or S. 151, Civil P. C. , even though the jurisdiction of the Court is specifically barred under R. 5 of O. 27, Civil P. C?', 'Whether the time for filing the written statement could be extended under R. 4 of Chapt. VI, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, even if it was held that R. 5 of O. 27 barred the jurisdiction of the Court to extend such time?', 'Whether R. 4 of Chap. VI Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, stands abrogated because of the amendment of the Civil P. C. by Act 104 of 1976, in view of the provisions contained in S. 22, General Clauses Act?']
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted O. 27, R. 5 of the Code as being concerned only with the fixing of a date of appearance on behalf of the Government when service is effected through the Government pleader and with nothing else. The court held that there is no bar to the Court extending the time for filing the written statement in a case where the Union of India or any Government is the defendant: such a defendant has to be treated exactly similar to any other defendant.
Final Decision: The reference was answered accordingly.
( 1 ) THE facts relating to this reference to a Division Bench have been detailed in the referring order. It is not necessary to set out many details here. The plaintiff has filed a suit in which the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority are the defendants. The Union of India has been praying for time to file its written statement and has been granted adjournments for this purpose. On 6-9-1981, it was urged by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the time to be granted to the Union of India for filing its written statement could not be extended for more than two months because of the amendment to O. 27, R. 5, Civil P. C. in 1976. In any event, both the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority have filed their written statements along with applications praying for condoning the delay in filing the same.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the time cannot be extended in the case of the Union of India, so the matter has been referred to this larger bench for deciding the following four points :
"1. Whether the provisions contained in R. 5 of O. 27, Civil P. C. , bar the jurisdiction of the Court to extend time to the Union of India for filing the written statement for a period beyond two months in the aggregate after the first date fixed for the filing of the written statement? 2. Whether the time could be extended for filing the written statement in exercise of the powers under S. 148 or S. 151, Civil P. C. , even though the jurisdiction of the Court is specifically barred under R. 5 of O. 27, Civil P. C? 3. Whether the time for filing the written statement could be extended under R. 4 of Chapt. VI, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, even if it was held that R. 5 of O. 27 barred the jurisdiction of the Court to extend such time? 4. Whether R. 4 of Chap. VI Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, stands abrogated because of the amendment of the Civil P. C. by Act 104 of 1976, in view of the provisions contained in S. 22, General Clauses Act?"in the referring order, some reference has been made to two decisions of Talwar J. , in I. A. No. 1743 of 1980 in Suit No. 1431 of 1979, Dewan Naubat Rai v. Dalbir Singh and I. A. 30% of 1982 in Suit No. 7067 of 1980, Messrs. Rani Shaver Poultry Breeding Farm Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Animal Husbandry wherein Talwar J. expressed the opinion that O. 27 R. 5 did not bar the extension of time for filing the written statement.
( 3 ) WE have examined the various provisions of law and we think that it would be useful to recall that O. 27. R. 5 has been in the Code from the beginning and has presented no difficulty in interpretation. The only addition made in 1976 were the words : "but the time so extended shall not exceed two months in the aggregate". This has led to the contention that the time for filing the written statement cannot be extended by more than two months. If the other provisions of the Code are examined along with this provision, the provision may not appear to give rise to such a controversy.
( 4 ) ORDER 5, R. 5 of the Code shows that the Court can issue summons either for settlement of issues or for final disposal of the Suit. R. 6 of O. 5 states that the Court fixes a date for this purpose according to the current business of the Court, the place of residence of the defendant and the time necessary for serving the summons. The particularly important words of this Rule are : "and the day shall be so fixed as to allow the defendant sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer on such day".
( 5 ) IF a summons is issued to a party other than the Government, the criterion for fixing the date is to be found in this Rule. However, there is a departure in the case of Government because of O. 27, R. 5. In the case of a Government, the service is not to be on the party, but on the Government pleader. Rule 4 of O. 27 states :-
"4. Agent for Government to receive Process. The Government pleader in any Court shall be the agent of the Governmen
