Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 1415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
Shantinagar (Shela) Co-Operative Housing Society Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bileshwar Corporation – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 22297 of 2022
Decided on : 09-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR BHADRISH S. RAJU, ADVOCATE with DHANESH R PATEL
For the Respondent: MR DHAVAL DAVE, MR JIGAR P RAVAL
The time limit for filing a written statement is directory and not mandatory, and should be construed in the light of the principle of natural justice. The rules of procedure are designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, and should not be used to trip people up. The court emphasized the need to prevent miscarriage of justice and to ensure that disputes are resolved in a time-bound manner.
Headnote:
Reopening Right to File Written Statement - Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11, Order VIII Rule 1 - The court allowed the petitioner to file written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The court emphasized that the rules of procedure are designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, and should not be used to trip people up. The court also highlighted the need to prevent miscarriage of justice and to ensure that disputes are resolved in a time-bound manner. The court relied on the decision in SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210, and held that the time limit for filing a written statement is directory and not mandatory, and should be construed in the light of the principle of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting the application to reopen the right to file a written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction. The suit had been filed in 2013, and after almost 9 years of inactivity, the respondent filed an application to close the defendant's right to file a written statement and reply. The petitioner had filed an application for rejection of the plaint within 30 days of receiving the notice of the suit, and had reserved the right to file a written statement after the application for rejection of the plaint was decided.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not an indolent litigant and had not taken the proceedings casually. The court emphasized that the rules of procedure are designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, and should not be used to trip people up. The court also highlighted the need to prevent miscarriage of justice and to ensure that disputes are resolved in a time-bound manner. The court allowed the petitioner to file written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to reopen the right to file a written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction after a significant delay in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time limit for filing a written statement is directory and not mandatory, and should be construed in the light of the principle of natural justice. The court emphasized the need to prevent miscarriage of justice and to ensure that disputes are resolved in a time-bound manner. The court allowed the petitioner to file written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petitioner to file written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction. The court directed the petitioner to pay costs for the late submission of written statement and reply to the respondent.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju with learned Advocate Mr. Dhanesh R. Patel for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave with learned Advocate Mr. Jigar P. Raval for the respondent (caveator).
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Jigar P. Raval waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
3. With consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.
4. By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand, under Exh. 60 in Special Civil Suit No. 407 of 2017, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner-defendant to reopen his right to file a written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction has been rejected.
5. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, as far as they are relevant for the present purpose are narrated herein below :
5.1 It appears that on 21.05.2013, the respondent M/s Bileshwar Corporation had filed Special Civil Suit No. 272 of 2013 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) for specific performance which came to be renumbered as Special Civil Suit No. 407 of 2017, which suit accompanied by application for interim injunction
5.2 It appears that while notice of the said suit had been issued by the learned Civil Court on 11.06.2013, and whereas it appears that after entering appearance, the present petitioner-original defendant had preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") for rejection of the plaint. It also appears that from such time, for almost 8-9 years, except for certain miscellaneous applications being filed, neither the suit nor the application for interim injunction had been taken up for hearing.
5.3 It also appears that the original plaintiff had filed an application on 22.06.2022 under Exh. 51, whereby it was requested that since the defendant has not been pursuing the proceedings of the civil suit as well as the application for rejection of plaint seriously, therefore the right of the defendant for written statement and the right of the defendant for making submissions as regards application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC may be closed. It appears that vide an order of the very date, the learned Civil Court had been pleased to close the stage of the petitioner-defendant for filing of written statement and the right of the petitioner-defendant to make oral submissions with regard to application for rejection of plaint had also been closed.
5.4 It appears that thereafter, the learned Civil Court had heard the application for rejection of plaint and whereas vide order dated 06.07.2022, the learned Civil Court had been pleased to allow such application and the plaint had been rejected. It also appears that thereafter the said order had been challenged by the original plaintiff before this Court by filing First Appeal No. 2320 of 2022 on 16.07.2022. It also appears that vide an order dated 06.10.2022, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had allowed the first appeal and whereas the Hon'ble Division Bench had inter alia laid down a time frame for deciding the application for interim injunction below Exh.5. It also appears that a statement made by the present petitioner-defendant as regards interim arrangement, had been extended for a period of four weeks from the date of initiation of hearing of application for interim injunction by the learned Civil Court.
5.5 It appears that on 20.10.2022 the civil suit had been restored and the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand, had passed an order laying down the time schedule to complete hearing of application for interim injunction. The petitioner-defendant had thereafter moved an application on 01.11.2022, whereby he had sought to reopen his right to file written statement and reply to the interim injunction application. Such application
