Honble RATHORE, J.–This writ petition is filed before the principal seat of High Court at Jodhpur. The learned single Judge vide order dated 27.11.2003 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering this fact that the petitioners are not given reasonable opportunity to file the written statement as well as in the interest of justice has given one opportunity to take written statement on record on the cost of Rs. 3000/-. The petition was disposed of at admission stage.

(2). Against the order dated 27.11.2003 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and the same was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 54/2004. The Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 27.11.2003 and the writ petition was returned with the direction to the registry to transfer the writ petition to Jaipur Bench. The Division Bench has considered the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has not looked into the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Since in the writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Beawer, as such only Jaipur Bench has jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter is transferred from Jodhpur to Jaipur Bench.

(3). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit against the petitioners for which notices were issued and the petitioner put up his appearance through the Advocate on 2.4.2003 and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for the maintainability of the suit. The matter was listed by the Trial Court on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 filed by the petitioner. On several dates the time was sought for filing reply and ultimately the reply to the application was filed on 31.7.2003. After filing the reply by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the petitioner filed an application under order 8 Rule 1 stating therein that after notices were served on him he had gone to Bombay and had fallen sick as he was suffering from High Blood Pressure and since he was a heart patient the doctors advised him total bed rest.

(4). The application so filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2003.

(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged this impugned order passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Ajmer on several counts. Mr. Maloo submits that until unless the Trial Court decide the application moved on behalf of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, the Trial Court seriously erred rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1. The learned Trial Court has also not properly considered the facts and the grounds mentioned in the application, the petitioner is able to show the sufficient reason to cause in filing the written statement beyond the prescribed limit and the Trial Court ought to have been condone the delay in filing the written statement.

(6). He drawn by attention towards the order sheets drawn by the Trial Court and by referring the order sheets of the Trial Court demonstrated before this Court that the Trial Court has never fixed the case for filing written statement and the case was listed for reply on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11. Thus in the interest of justice it is just and proper for the Trial Court to condone the delay and take the written statement on record.

(7). In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. vs. Corporation Bank (1), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that the provision as contained under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 is procedural in nature. It is also clear that with a view to achieve the object of the enactment, that there may be speedy disposal of such cases, that it has been provided that reply it t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document