SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Hicinko Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Roshan Shimal - Respondent
CM(M) 763 of 2022 & CM Appl. 33855 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2022




Closure of the right to file a written statement by the trial court can be revisited if the parties agree, with costs imposed ensuring fairness in the proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Closure of right to file written statement - The learned Additional District Judge closed the right of the defendants to file a written statement after multiple opportunities were provided, finding no fault in this decision - The Court permitted a late filing subject to conditions. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Fair trial rights - The Court emphasized every party's right to prosecute their case in accordance with law, allowing the written statement to be recorded with imposed costs. (Paras 4-5)

(C) Costs imposed - A cost of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed for the late acceptance of written statements, with specific conditions for compliance. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The defendants were given ample time to file their written statement, following the issuance of summons in October 2019, but failed to do so until January 2021, when their right was closed.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the learned ADJ's decision to close the right to file, but after respondent's agreement, allowed the statement to be submitted with conditions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the closure of the right to file a written statement without prejudice violated the petitioners' right to a fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that allowing the late written statement, while subject to costs, did not compromise the fair trial rights of the defendants and served the interests of justice.

Result: Petition disposed of with conditions.

Table of Content
1. closure of written statement right upon non-filing (Para 1 , 2)
2. court observed no grounds for interference (Para 3 , 4)
3. written statement allowed with costs (Para 5 , 6)
4. expedite trial process (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The impugned order, dated 22nd January 2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 572/2019 (Roshan Shimal v. M/s Hicinko Pv. Ltd & Ors.), closes the right of the petitioners, as the defendants before the learned ADJ, to file written statement.

2. The list of dates filed with the petition discloses that the summons were issued in the suit on 3rd October 2019, whereafter opportunity was granted to the petitioners to file written statement on 10th December 2019 and 4th September 2020. It was only when no written statement was forthcoming despite nearly a year and a half having passed since issuance of summons that, by order dated 22nd January 2021, the learned ADJ closed the right to file written statement.

3. No fault can be found with the learned ADJ in taking such a decision. Ordinarily, no case for interference with such an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be made out.

4. However, learned Counsel for the respondent has fairly agreed to have the written statement placed on record subject to terms.

5. In view thereof and keeping in mind the right of every party to be entitled to prosecute his case in accordance with law, this Court permits the written statement, stated to have been filed by the petitioners after his right was closed by the order dated 22nd January 2021, to be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/-, to be paid to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft within a week from today. Proof of payment of costs would also be furnished before the learned Trial Court. Failure to pay costs, as afore-directed, shall result in revitalization of the impugned order and closure of the petitioners' right to file written statement.

6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

7. Learned Trial Court is requested to proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible.

8. Miscellaneous application is also disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top