1. This revision is directed against the interim orders dated 3rd of March, 2005 and 17th of March, 2005 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Leh in civil suit titled Tsewang Narboo Vs. Tsering Angchok.

2. The petitioner has assailed the said orders on the ground that the trial court had no powers to extend the time fixed by the appellate court for filing the written statement.

It is apt to notice the facts of the case.

3. The plaintiff has filed the above titled civil suit for, Damages and, Recovery of Possession in the Court of Principal District Judge, Leh. The learned District Judge, Leh after hearing the parties disposed of the interim injunction application vide order dated 10th April, 2004. The petitioner/plaintiff assailed the said order by the medium of appeal (CIMA No.40/2005) before this Court. This court set aside the said order.

4. It is profitable to reproduce operative part of the judgment of this Court herein;-

In view of these facts I find that the trial court™s order impugned in the present appeal cannot stand. I remand this case to the trial court for a fresh adjudication. Before proceedings in the matter the respondents shall file its detailed written statement to the plaint before the trial court on next date of hearing. The respondent shall also place on file alongwith the written statement all the documents on which it relies. The documents may be filed in original. The appellant shall also file all the original documents before the trial court Photostat copies of which have already been placed by him on record. The trial court shall hear the parties a fresh on the application for grant of interim relief and consider the rival contentions of the parties in light of the pleas raised in the plaint (or which may be raised in the plaint) and appreciate prima facie the same on the basis of the documents placed before the court.

The parties shall appear before the trial court on 03.03.2005. The respondent shall file the written statement on that date failing which his right to file the written statement shall be closed by the trial court and the application for interim relief shall be disposed of as far as practicable within a period of one month from the date so fixed.

5. Upon perusal of the trial court file, it appears that on 3rd of March, 2005, the plaintiff has appeared in person while as none has caused appearance on behalf of the defendant before the trial court. The trial court issued notice to the defendant with the command to file written statement and posted the case on 17th March, 2005. The parties caused appearance on 17th March, 2005. The learned counsel for the defendant sought adjournment for filing written statement and file was posted on 7th April, 2005. It appears that respondent/defendant has filed written statement on 19th March, 2005.

6. The petitioner filed this revision petition before this Court on 11th April, 2005.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The bone of contention is whether the trial court has powers to extend the time fixed by this Court despite of the fact that this court has ordered that in default right to file the written statement shall be closed. It is profitable to reproduce Order 8 Rule 10 CPC herein;-

Order 8 Rule 10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.-Where any party from whom a written statement [is required under rule 1 or rule 8] fails to present the same within the time [permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall] pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit [and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up.]

8. This provision mandates that if the defendant fails to file written statement, the court has either to pronounce judgment or has to make such an order which the Hon™ble court deems fit. If the court will not pronounce the judgment then the plaintiff has to lead evidence and prove his case. The defendant has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document