1. Suit for perpetual injunction captioned Shanker Dass Gupta vs. Brij Lal is pending before the Court of Munsiff, Katra. Petitioner(defendant) has failed to file the written statement despite having availed numerous opportunities. On 29.11.2011, then on 07.12.2011 and 11.01.2012, there was no representation on behalf of the defendant. Order dated 11.01.2012 is impugned, in terms whereof right to file the written statement has been closed.

2. Petitioner (defendant) has filed an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings and for extension of time for filing written statement, which has been dismissed vide order dated 21.05.2012. It has been observed that as against order dated 11.01.2012, remedy available is to file revision petition.

3. Since the revisional powers have been curtailed vis-`-vis such like orders in view of the proviso to Section 115 of CPC, so remedy of revision is not available. It is in view of this legal position petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K State.

4. On behalf of respondent (plaintiff) Mr. Vikram Singh Advocate has entered appearance being on caveat, as such, caveat Nos.624/2012 and 626/2012 shall stand discharged. He has also produced attested copy of interim orders recorded by trial court from 19.04.2011 to 11.01.2012. Same is taken on record.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) that petitioner (defendant) has failed to avail numerous opportunities, enlargement of time for filing the written statement is totally impermissible in view of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC read with Rule 10.

6. Considered.

7. Power of revision exercisable under Section 115 of CPC after amendment to the proviso has undergone drastic change i.e. only such orders can be examined in revision which are final in its operation or, order, if would have been in favour of the revisionist would result in termination of the suit proceedings. This position has been clearly settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the judgment captioned Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & ors, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, wherein it has also been made clear that supervisory powers of the High Court by amendment in Civil Procedure Code have not been taken away but for exercise of such power an exceptional case has to be set up so as to undo the injustice.

8. Now the question is as to whether orders impugned are such which will result in miscarriage of justice and whether same presents a situation which has trappings of an exceptional case so as to persuade the Court to exercise supervisory powers under Section 104 of the State Constitution read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Admittedly suit has been presented on 19.4.2011, defendant has appeared for the first time before the trial court on 31st May, 2011, then on 20th July, 2011 no one has appeared on behalf of the defendant, then on 16.8.2011 defendant has appeared but plaintiff has remained absent. On 20.9.2011 counsel for the defendant had sought time for filing written statement. Then again on 25th October, 2011 time has been sought and granted for filing written statement, same is the position recorded on 14.11.2011. On 29.11.2011 it is recorded that the advocates have suspended the work, no one is present so matter adjourned for 07.12.2011, on the same date later on attorney of the plaintiff is shown to have caused appearance. Then on 07.12.2011 both parties have remained absent as the advocates had suspended work. On 11.01.2012 order has been recorded as under:-

L/C for plaintiff is present. Nemo for defendant. Neither the W. S is filed as yet. Case is called again & again. Nobody is present for defendant. Even the period prescribed for filing w.s in view of amended CPC is expired. Thus right to file W. S by the defendant is closed despite the fact that no. of opportunities are granted. L/C for plaintiff is directed to give evidence on affidavits. Put on 31/01/2012 .

10. Defendant sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document