Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
New Manas Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Bargaon Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 2623 of 2005
Decided On : 11.05.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.R. Dey, A.K. Paul, D. Choudhury and B. Sarka, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: A. Sarma and M. Sarma, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rigidity of the time limit for filing a written statement under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC and the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension. The judgment emphasizes the importance of promptness and vigilance in adhering to the time limit and the objective of expediting civil case disposal.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Challenge to order rejecting review application for refusal to accept written statement - Order 8, Rule 1, CPC - 2003 (3) GLT 30, 2005 (1) GLT 538 - The court discussed the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1, CPC and emphasized the rigidity of the time limit for filing a written statement. The court highlighted the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension of time and the importance of promptness and vigilance in adhering to the time limit. The court also emphasized the objective of expediting civil case disposal and the need to deter delaying tactics. The court found no grounds for exception in the case and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting the review application for refusal to accept the written statement. The petitioner argued that the court should have decided the application seeking inspection of documents before refusing to accept the written statement. The petitioner also contended that the review order was not in accordance with the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period and did not seek an extension of time. The court emphasized the rigidity of the time limit for filing a written statement and the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension. The court also noted the petitioner's delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction and found no grounds for exception in the case.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal to accept the written statement, the review application, and the delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the rigidity of the time limit for filing a written statement and the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension. The court also highlighted the importance of promptness and vigilance in adhering to the time limit and the objective of expediting civil case disposal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Paul, advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, advocate for the respondent. The matter is taken up for final disposal at the motion state itself as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1, Guwahati rejecting the review application filed in respect of an order dated 3.3.2004 by which the written statement filed by the defendant, the present petitioner in a Money Suit was refused to be accepted on ground of expiry of the period prescribed for filing the same.
3. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the respondent herein as the plaintiff has instituted Money Suit No. 125/2003 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1 Guwahati against the present petitioner as the defendant for realisation of a sum of Rs. 43,10,875. Summons were issued on 20.9.2003 fixing the next date as 20.11.2003 and there is no dispute that the same was served on the defendant/petitioner on 1.11.2003. As to what happened thereafter has been indicated in the writ petition vide Annexure-III, the copy of the order sheets, which is reproduced below :
20.11.2003 : Learned advocate for the plaintiff is present. Summon has been served.
Defendant has filed Vakalatnama. There is no P.O. Fix 19.1.2004 for
necessary order.
19.1.2004 : Learned advocate for the both parties are present. Defendant has filed
a petition No. 35/04 under order 11, Rule 15, Section 151 C.P.C. P.O.
is not appointed. Fix 3.3.2004 for necessary order.
3.3.2004 : Both the parties are present through their learned counsel. Defendant
said he has filed their w/s today after expiry of mandatory period of 90
days. Hence the w/s filed by the defendant side can not be accepted.
Since the defendant side failed to submit their w/s within the outer
limit of 90 days as such suit shall proceed ex parte against the
defendant. Also seen Ptn. 35/04 dated 19.1.2004 under order 11, Rule
15 C.P.C., R/ws. 151 C.P.C. filed by the defendant for inspection of
documents as mentioned in the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel
for the defendant. Perused the C.R. and the prayer is allowed. Plaintiff
side is to produce the originals of the said documents in the Court for
inspection by the defendant within 15 days from this date.
Fix 18.3.2004 for evidence of the plaintiff side. On affidavit and at a
time and for submission of the original documents by the plaintiff for
inspection by the defendant.
4. Making a grievance against the aforesaid order dated 3.3.2004, the defendant/petitioner filed a review application vide petition No. 272/04 which was registered and numbered as Misc. Application No. 80/04. The review application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30.11.2004, relevant portion of which is reproduced below :
"It is already discussed above that under Order 8, Rule 1, defendant is allowed maximum 90 days to file the W.S. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the judgment of Baliram Prasad Gupta v. Md. Isa reported in 2003 (3) GLT 30 observed that W.W. is to be filed within 30 days with extension of 60 days from the date of service of summons. From the case record it is found that the summons on the defendant was served on 1.11.2003. As per the aforesaid provision defendant ought to have filed the W.S. within 90 days from 1.11.2003. The learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that as the petition for inspection of the documents is pending for inspection of the documents is pending they are entitled to file the W.S. after allowing them to inspect the documents. But Order 8, Rule 1, is a mandatory provision. That apart the petition dated 19.1.2004 by which the defendant prayed to allow them to inspect the documents revealed
