Point of Law: court had no power to extend the period for filing of a written statement beyond 120 days, as Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC was mandatory.

ORDER :

I.As. 10163/2021 (of plaintiffs u/O VIII R-10 CPC to proceed ex-parte against the defendants), 13112/2021 (of defendants u/S 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement) & 13113/2021 (of defendants u/S 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in re-filing I.A.13112/2021)

1. By I.A. No.10163/2021, the plaintiffs No.1&3 have prayed that the defendants be proceeded ex-parte and their right to file the written statement be closed, in view of the fact that the defendants have not adhered to the strict time schedule prescribed for commercial suits. The defendants have, on the other hand filed I.A. Nos.13112/2021 & 13113/2021 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and re-filing the condonation application respectively.

2. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that this suit has been filed by the children of late Sh. H.K. Sarin and Smt. Vera Sarin against the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India and the Competent Authority under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (‘SAFEMA’ for short). The suit has been filed for recovery of damages for loss of market rent, mesne profits and interest. The property being Flat No.1108, Ansal Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (‘Suit Property’ for short) which had been purchased by the plaintiffs through their mother acting as their attorney, on 6th March, 1972 through Articles of Agreement executed with Ansal & Saigal Properties Private Limited, was leased out to the Government of India through defendant No.1 from time to time since 1st September, 1976, the last extension being vide Lease Deed dated 25th November, 1990. The said lease was determined on completion of its tenure of five years on 25th November, 1995. Thereafter the tenancy was treated as a month to month tenancy at a monthly rent of Rs.20,500/-. The defendant No.1 allotted the suit property as office accommodation to the defendant No.2 which remained in possession and use of the property till they vacated the premises and removed their articles therefrom on 2nd July, 2020.

3. The plaintiffs accepted the keys to the property on 22nd January, 2020 without prejudice to their rights and claims arising out of the continued possession of the property. However, it was only pursuant to this Court’s directions issued in CM No.3099/2020 in W.P.(C) No.10395/2019 dated 12th June, 2020, that the defendants removed their articles from the suit property on 2nd July, 2020. The order dated 16th July, 2020 recorded that the defendant No.1 shall pay the arrears from 1st May, 1999 to 2nd July, 2020 on the basis of the last rent paid i.e. Rs.20,500/- which amounted to Rs.52,08,323/- and which stands paid.

4. By means of this suit, the plaintiffs have sought market rent and mesne profits at the prevailing market rent for the period from 1st May, 1999 to 2nd July, 2020, claiming that they had been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the suit property despite recall of the order of preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974(‘COFEPOSA’ for short), rendering the order of forfeiture under SAFEMA invalid and illegal. This has been quantified at Rs.2,20,70,954/- towards damages. Rs.9,89,077/- towards maintenance charges and Rs.43,53,912/- towards arrears of property tax, have also been sought with interest @ 12% per annum.

5. Summons were directed to be issued on 11th January, 2021 when the learned counsel for the defendants No.1&2 was present on advance notice. He accepted the summons in the suit on behalf of the defendants No.1&2 and this Court directed that the written statement be filed within thirty days from 11th January, 2021 with affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiffs, failing which the written statement was not to be taken on record.

6. It was the contention of Mr. Sidhant Kumar, learn