The court held that procedural unfairness due to technical irregularities can justify allowing the filing of Written Statements after delays, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural strictures.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai; ACJ. - The Petitioners are before this Court seeking directions for setting aside the impugned Order, dated 30.03.2021, of the Learned District Judge, Special Division-II, Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Suit No.14 of 2018 (Shri Jashang Subba v. Smt. Shanti Subba and Others), vide which the Learned Trial Court disallowed the Petitioners from filing their Written Statements in the Title Suit.

2.(i) The facts relevant for the present purposes are narrated in seriatim hereinbelow for clarity.

(ii) On 29.09.2018, the Respondent filed a Suit before the Learned Trial Court against the Petitioners for Declaration, Recovery of Possession, Injunction and other Consequential Reliefs, pertaining to a Plot of land situated at Tumlabong, Ranipool, East Sikkim. Summons was received by the Petitioners on 08.10.2018 and appearance through Counsel made before the Learned Court on 26.10.2018, the date previously fixed. The matter was posted for filing of Written Statement on 05.12.2018. On the relevant day i.e. 05.12.2018, instead of filing the Written Statement, the Petitioners filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) seeking rejection of the Plaint. A fortnight later, on 21.12.2018, the Respondent filed his Response to the said Application which came to be heard and rejected by the Learned Trial Court on 11.03.2019.

(iii) Pursuant thereto, on 28.03.2019, the Petitioners filed an Application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking leave of the Court to file their Written Statements beyond the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. Objection to this Application, was filed by the Respondent on 24.04.2019. Both the Petition and the Objection were taken on record but not heard on the same day.

(iv) On 14.07.2020, the Respondent filed an Application under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, Response to which was filed by the Petitioners on 10.08.2020. On the same date (10.08.2020), the Petitioners also filed an Application under Order I Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC, Reply to which the Respondent filed on 15.09.2020.

(v) On 22.03.2021, the Learned Trial Court heard both, the Application of the Petitioners filed under Section 151 of the CPC and the Application of the Respondent filed under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The impugned Order came to be passed on 30.03.2021.

(vi) It is relevant to mention that in the interregnum, on the Petitioners’ Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC being rejected by the Learned Trial Court vide Order, dated 11.03.2019, the Petitioners were before this Court on 26.04.2019, assailing it. Civil Revision Petition No.01 of 2019 (Shanti Subba and Others v. Jashang Subba) was registered in this Court and vide Judgment pronounced on 26.06.2020, the Revision Petition of the Petitioners was rejected.

3.(i) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners while reiterating the facts as reflected hereinabove, advanced the argument that the Learned Trial Court had passed the impugned Order, dated 30.03.2021, arbitrarily, having failed to consider that on 05.12.2018, which was the second date on which the Petitioners appeared before the Court, they had filed their Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the Plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action. That, the Order, dated 05.12.2018, reflected that the Petitioners were allowed to file their respective Written Statements on the next date fixed i.e. 18.12.2018. However, on 18.12.2018, the Respondent sought time to file Respo