K.S. SIDHU, J.—This petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order, dated, August 7, 1978, made by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the learned Judge forfeited, the defendants right to present a written statement of her defence.

2. The facts material to the decision of this petition may be shortly stated. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation, the respondent herein, brought a suit against Sushila Jain, the petitioner herein, for recovery of Rs. 6,00089-94p. on the basis of a contract of guarantee, on October 13, 1976. The defendant who is a resident of New Delhi could not be served with the summons of the court inspite of repeated efforts made by the process serving agency the court over a period of nearly one year. This led the court to believe that the respondent was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service. The court bad therefore to take resort to substituted service by advertisement in a daily news paper fixing October 27, 1977, as the date for the appearance of the defendant. The defendant entered appearance that day, but did not file her written statement of defenc3 on the plea that no copy of the plaint was available to her for making the reply. The court arranged to supply her with a copy of the plaint, permitting her to present the written statement on January 12, 1978. The case had to be adjourned many a time between January 12, to March 10, 1978, but the defendant did not avail of these opportunities to present her written statement of defence. On March 10, 1978, she filed an application under sections 10 and 151 C. P. C. for stay of the suit. This application was dismissed by the court on July 18, 1978. Taking a somewhat indulgent view in the matter, the court granted further time permitting the defendant to file the written statement on August 7, 1978. It appears that the defendant was determined to prolong the proceedings further. Instead of filing the written statement, her counsel requested the court on August 7, 1978, for further adjournment on the plea that the defendant was desirous of filing a petition of revision in the High Court challenging the dismissal of her application for stay of the suit, ordered on July 18, 1978. The court refused to grant the adjournment, making the observations that the case had been pending for presenting her written statement for a long time and that the defendants proposal to file a petition of revision in the High Court could not in any manner be hampered or prejudiced by her filing the written statement. It was in these circumstances that the court made the impugned order forfeiting the defendants right to present the written statement and directing the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of her claim in the suit.

3. After hearing both sides and reading the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of opinion that the defendant-petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference in the impugned order by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C. P. C.

4. Section 115 (1) in so far as it is material for our present purpose reads as under :

"115. Revision (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears—

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,"

the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.

It cannot possibly be contended in this case that the learned Additional District Judge in passing the impugned order has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him. That being so, this petition cannot be sustained under clauses (a) and (b)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document