The court emphasized that delays in filing written submissions must be justified with adequate reasons, and routine condonation of delays is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

Heard Sri Tarun Varma alongwith Sri Ridham Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Malviya, advocate holding brief of Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with following prayer;

''Issue writ, order or direction in the nature calling for the record of the case and quashing the orders dated 13.9.2022 and 17.1.2023.''

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has filed Suit No. 363 of 2007 impleading the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. In the said suit, notice was issued on 17.1.2018. Defendant No. 3 i.e. respondent No. 7, who is brother of other respondents after receiving notice, has filed written submission alongwith delay and considering the same in accordance with under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, Court vide order dated 10.9.2021 has rejected the same.

4. He next submitted that notices were not served upon defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, therefore, petitioner/plaintiff has moved application 17Ga/18Ga for publication of summon in newspaper, which was allowed vide order dated 23.1.2018. Pursuant to that publication was made in newspaper on 7.2.2018 and submitted copy of newspaper alongwith application 19Ka2 before the Trial Court on 25.1.2018. After publication, for the first time, defendant Nos. 2 4, 5, 6 and 7 have filed application No. 47C dated 2.7.2022 alongwith affidavit on the ground that application 19Ka2 of the petitioner has not been disposed off, there is no order of Court about service of summon, only after perusal of order sheet, he could know about the facts and filed application with written submission. The said application was allowed by Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Gorakhpur vide order dated 13.9.2022. Against that petitioner has filed Civil Revision No. 89 of 2022 and revisional Court has affirmed the finding of Trial Court vide order dated 17.1.2023. He next submitted that Trial Court has passed the order dated 23.1.2018 for publication, which was immediately complied with and news paper was submitted before the Trial Court alongwith application 19Ka2. Therefore, it is duty upon the Court to dispose off the application and in case, same is not decided, petitioner is not responsible for that. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the matter of Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr. Sumit Srimal; C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1853 and 1854 of 2024.

5. He next submitted that alongwith application No. 47C dated 2.7.2022, no delay condonation application has been filed, even then, delay of more than one year has been condoned treating the written submission within time. He next submitted that in non commercial matter, provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory, but in regular suit, if written submission has been accepted beyond limitation, reasons must have been assigned by the Court. He also pointed out that Case of defendant No. 3 is identical to the case of defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 whose written submissions have been rejected on the ground of delay. Therefore, this application may not having treated in time and be rejected. He next submitted that finding of the Trial Court is absolutely perverse and Court relying upon some judgments has held that those are related to Commercial dispute. He next submitted that petitioner is not treating any parity with commercial case and his case is undisputedly not a commercial case. Even that in case, if written submission is accepted beyond the limitation provided under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, reasons must have been recorded, which is absolutely missing in the impugned order dated 13.9.2022. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matters of Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co.; (2018) 6 SCC 639 and Desh Raj v. Balkishan (dead) Through Proposed Legal Representative Ms. Rohini; (2020) 2 S