Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Anil Kumar Goel – Petitioner
Versus
Arun Kumar Goel – Respondent
CM (M) No. 812 of 2017
Decided On : 02-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Punit Jain.
Adherence to the prescribed time period for filing written statements and the court's discretion in granting extensions beyond the prescribed period.
Headnote:
Written Statement - Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 10, CPC - Balraj Taneja vs. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396, C.N. Ramappa Gowda vs. C.C. Chandregowda (Dead) by LRs. (2012) 5 SCC 265, Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 396
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/defendant failed to file a written statement within the prescribed time period, and the court declined to grant further extension based on the legislative intent to eliminate delays in the disposal of suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order impugned was not perverse and that the petitioner's pleas for additional time to file the written statement were without merit.
Issues: Failure to file written statement within the prescribed time, request for extension of time, and the legislative intent to eliminate delays in suit disposal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the time period for filing a written statement is provided by law and should be adhered to, and that extensions beyond the prescribed period should not be granted routinely.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order declining further extension for filing the written statement.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM No. 27299/2017 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM (M) No. 812/2017 & CM No. 27300/2017 (for stay)
3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 1st July, 2017 of the Court of District & Session Judge , Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as under:
“01.07.2017
Present:
Plaintiff – by Sh. Devanshu Jain, Adv.
Defendant – by Sh. K.D. Singh, Adv. seeks time.
Declined since WS not filed despite opportunities.
Put up for PE by 23.08.2017.”
4. The order aforesaid does not disclose any reason whatsoever for purportedly closing the right of the petitioner/defendant to file written statement and in fact does not even close the right to file written statement and does not strike off the defence of the petitioner/defendant and does not give any reason in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as to why the suit was not being decreed immediately or why the need for requiring the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence was felt, as the order should in law. Reference in this regard may be made to Balraj Taneja vs. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396, C.N. Ramappa Gowda vs. C.C. Chandregowda (Dead) by LRs. (2012) 5 SCC 265 and Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 396.
5. What transpires from reading of the paper book is that (i) summons of the suit issued on 11th April, 2017 were served on the petitioner/defendant on 19th April, 2017; (ii) the petitioner/defendant appeared before the Court on 18th May, 2017 through proxy advocate who filed vakalatnama and the order of 18th May, 2017 is as under:
“18.05.2017
Present:
Plaintiff – by Sh. R.K. Jain, Advocate.
Defendant absent. By proxy Sh. Praveen Aggarwal – files V/n on behalf of Sh. Puneet Jain. Extra Copy furnished by the Court.
Put up this matter for WS by 01.07.2017.”
(iii) that the written statement was not filed and no application for extension of time for filing written statement was also filed and which resulted in the order dated 1st July, 2017 supra.
6. I may notice that the petitioner/defendant, even along with this petition, has not filed any written statement.
7. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant states that one weeks time be given to file written statement, indicating that the written statement is still not ready.
8. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant has argued (i) that the period of 30 days prescribed for filing the written statement is only directory; (ii) that the time of 90 days for filing the written statement had not expired and (iii) that complete paper book was given to the petitioner/defendant only on 18th May, 2017. It is thus contended that one more opportunity be given.
9. After this Court has indicated that I am not inclined to grant any such indulgence, additional arguments are raised (i) that the documents are very voluminous and written statement could not be prepared and (ii) that talks of settlement were going on.
10. All the said pleas taken now as an afterthought and without filing any application for extension of time for filing written statement, cannot be accepted at this stage.
11. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to inquire, whether the order impugned is perverse and in the facts aforesaid, the order cannot be said to be perverse. Moreover, 30 days time is sufficient to file written statement, howsoever voluminous the documents may be. This is quite evident from the fact that the counsel for the petitioner, being pressed to the wall, is now ready to prepare the written statement within one week only. Similarly, the plea of complete paper book having not been furnished is also not borne out from the order dated 18th May, 2017. It cannot be lost sight of that Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate appearing today and who states that he is the advocate for the petitioner/defendant in the suit also, did not even bother
