Alleged negligence of the counsel and failure to file the written statement within the stipulated period were not sufficient grounds for review, as they did not warrant the exercise of Supervisory jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

(Through Video Conferencing)

1. In the instant petition review of order dated 21.11.2020 passed in OW104 No. 97/2016 by this court is sought by the petitioner on the following grounds:-

(I) Because the Order sought to be reviewed, it is humbly submitted, has failed to appreciate the grounds urged by the petitioner vis-a-vis the facts, as available from the records, as such, is liable to be reviewed for the error apparent on the face of record.

(II) Because the order sought to be reviewed omits to consider that the bar contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC to failure, to file the written statement within ninety days would not operate in the facts situation of the present case, in as much as the period for filing the written statement stood extended by the trial Court by its permission to file the written" statement in its order dated 20-01-2016. This permission to file the written statement has not been challenged by the respondents/plaintiffs, in absence whereof the respondents/plaintiffs cannot urge to play the bar contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. This, therefore, would fall within the ambit of error apparent on the face of the record as the respondents/plaintiffs were estopped from supporting the closure of right to file the written statement.

(III) Because, the order dated 10-03-2016 passed by the Learned Trial Court [impugned in the petition OW 104 No. 97/2016] is not passed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, and therefore, there was no occasion to uphold the closure of the right of the petitioner to file the written statement by invoking Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. So also the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error apparent on the face of record.

(IV) Because the order impugned dated 10/03/2016 in the petition OW 104 No. 97/2016 closes the right of the petitioner to file the written statement primarily for non-deposition of the costs as directed by order dated 20/01/2016. It was specifically urged that the petitioner had given Rs. 6000/- to his Learned Counsel representing him in the Trial Court for the said purpose as was told by him. The personal presence to pay the costs was not required. The petitioner was therefore under a bonafide belief that his counsel would have deposited the costs. However, by order dated 10/03/2016, the petitioner came to learn that a paltry sum of Rs. 700/- out of Rs. 6000/- was also not deposited by the Learned Counsel. The order sought to be reviewed fails to consider this aspect of the matter in as much as the petitioner has suffered for negligence, intentional or otherwise, of his counsel in all bonafides and not because of any intended omission on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner had also based this submission supported by the case laws cited as AIR 1981SC 1400 and 2012 (2) JKJ 325[HC].

(V) Because the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that the rigors of time contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are only directory and can be relaxed for a cause which is reasonable/sufficient. It is submitted that the reasons submitted by the petitioners/defendants, for seeking to set aside the ex-parte proceedings, have been held by the Trial Court to be disclosing a sufficient cause that prevented the petitioner from joining the proceedings in its order dated 20/01/2016. Finding reasons so submitted by the petitioner to be sufficient reasons for the setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings, the same would come to the rescue of the petitioner for seeking an extension of time in filing the written statement. The order sought to be reviewed, calculating the period of ninety days from the initial service of summons on 11/03/2015 without adverting to the causes for inability to file the written statement, would bring the order sought to be reviewed within the scope of error apparent on the face of record.

2. Before dealing with the grounds detailed out herein above, it would be appropriate to give a brief background of the case here under: -

3. Petitioner herein invoked Supervisory Jurisdiction of this