Trial Courts have discretion to grant last opportunities for filing written statements, emphasizing that extensions should not be routine but can be justified based on case circumstances.

ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the trial Court, whereby last opportunity has been granted to the defendants for filing their written statement. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that such opportunity ought not to have been granted and instead the right of the defendants to file their written statement ought to have been closed.

2. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the trial Court has itself observed that several opportunities have been granted to the defendants to file their written statement, but they have not done so. It has consequently, by way of last opportunity, directed the defendants to file their written statement and has further observed that in case the same is not done Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA then the right to file the written statement shall be closed.

3. Though the senior counsel for the plaintiffs has referred to various proceedings of the trial Court but from a perusal of the same, it is observed that after service of summons upon the defendants, various applications have been filed and time has been sought for filing reply on the same. The english translation of the plaint and applications was also sought for by the defendants which has been submitted. Despite the same, the trial Court has taken note of the fact that time has been granted to the defendants earlier and has consequently directed them to file written statement with a peremptory stipulation.

4. Though it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association (II) Vs. Union of India, 2005 (6) SCC 344 : (2005) 5 Supreme 236 that the order extending period of time to file the written statement cannot be made in routine and that the same should be done only in exceptionally heard cases yet in view of the dispute raised between the parties which appears to be in respect of personal rights and not proprietary rights, if the trial Court has granted time to file written statement, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by it. The provision is directory and not mandatory. Reasons have been recorded by the trial Court for giving time to file written statement.

5. The order passed by the trial Court is a discretionary order and the same has been passed by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be said that while passing the impugned order, the trial Court has either failed to exercise its jurisdiction or has Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity.

6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is affirmed as a result of which the petition is dismissed.