The delay in filing a written statement can only be condoned for exceptional reasons beyond the control of the defendant, as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 7 May 2019 passed by Revisional Court in Civil Revision No.177 of 2018 whereby the revisional court has allowed the revision and has set aside the order dated 12 November 2018 passed by the trial court. The trial court, by the said order, had allowed the application Paper No.94-C and condoned delay in filing of the written statement by the petitioner (defendant No.2).

2. In short, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows: –

3. The plaintiff-respondent instituted Original Suit No. 261 of 2016 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 18/19 February 1988 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from executing any sale deed in respect of the suit property. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit on 29 April 2016. She filed an application on 6 May 2016 under Order 7 Rule, 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

4. The petitioner did not file any written statement. She kept on pursuing her application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Ultimately, it was not pressed, resulting in its dismissal on 28 August 2018. She thereafter filed an application 94-C with prayer to take on record the written statement filed along with it after condoning the delay in filing the same. The application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the petitioner deliberately did not file the written statement for more than twenty eight months since she entered appearance with oblique motive of delaying the proceedings. She was aware that the plaint could not be rejected on the plea of limitation but still she chose not to file the written statement.

5. The trial court as noted above, allowed the application relying mainly on the decision of the Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association vs Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 635. The trial court held that a very strict and technical view is to be eschewed otherwise it will result in serious prejudice to the petitioner. The trial court accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner in not filing written statement within prescribed time. The trial court also held that the plaintiff-respondent could be compensated by cost and accordingly allowed the application subject to payment of a cost of Rs.2000/- to the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent being aggrieved thereby filed a revision, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is manifestly illegal. The trial court had rightly allowed the application 94C. According to him, once an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is filed, it is bounden duty of the trial court to decide the same before commencing the trial. Consequently, till the time application remained pending, the defendant was not obliged to file the written statement nor there was any question of delay. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed great emphasis on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R K Roja versus US Rayudu and another, 2016 (14) SCC 275 . It is also urged that as soon as the petitioner realized that it would be better to press the point relating to limitation after issues are framed, she immediately got the application dismissed as not pressed and also filed her written statement. In the circumstances, the trial court was fully justified in condoning the delay in filing of the written statement. The revisional court has taken a very technical view in directing the written statement to be taken off the record. Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others, AIR 2005 SC 2441 and Zolba Vs. Keshao and others, AIR 2008 SC 2099.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent urged that the revisional court has rightly allowed the revision in as much as the p