IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in filing written statement, even up to eight years can be allowed on the ground of inadvertent and over sight of the Advocate to inform the applicant and to avoid injustice and for proper decision on payment of cost.

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Present writ petition is directed against orders dated 14.7.2014 and 20.12.2014, passed by the courts below, whereby petitioner’s prayer to belatedly accept written statement, in reply to the counter claim, has been rejected, as being grossly barred by limitation.

2. Facts in brief are that plaintiff petitioner filed Original Suit No. 169 of 2005 with the allegation that she has purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed, which consists of a house, on 29.10.2003 from its earlier owner Rishal son of Sri Natthu, and as such, is the owner in possession of the suit property. Allegation in the plaint was that defendant is trying to forcibly enter into possession, and therefore, injunction was sought in the suit, restraining the defendant from forcibly taking possession of the suit property, and to further restrain her from interfering with petitioner’s possession. Suit was contested by defendant, who filed a written statement denying plaint allegation. Along with the written statement, a counter claim was also filed with the allegation that the registered sale deed dated 29.10.2003, which was basis of plaintiff’s claim, is a void document, and consequently, a declaration to this effect was sought in the counter claim. No written statement/reply to the counter claim was filed by the plaintiff. Although on 13.4.2006 time was granted to the plaintiff to file reply to the counter claim, but no reply was filed. However, the suit proceeded, and issues were framed on 13.4.2006. Issue no.11 was framed that whether the alleged sale deed dated 29.10.2003 is liable to be cancelled, for the reasons disclosed in the counter claim ? A further issue was framed as to whether the defendant is the owner of the suit property ?

3. Suit proceeded further, and parties adduced evidence in support of their claim. Thereafter, date was fixed for argument in the matter on 17.4.2014, but the matter was adjourned to subsequent dates, for some reason or the other, and no arguments could be advanced. On 3.7.2014, plaintiff moved an application stating that her counsel at the time of preparation of the matter found that no written statement to the counter claim was available in the case file, and it later transpired that actually no written statement to the counter claim had at all been filed. Accordingly, an application was moved to take on record the written statement to the counter claim. It was also submitted that evidence in respect of the counter claim has already been filed, and therefore, no delay would be caused in disposal of the proceedings. It was stated that non-filing of written statement to the counter claim was wholly due to inadvertent oversight on part of the Advocate concerned, and there was no intention on part of the plaintiff to delay the disposal of the matter.

4. The trial court after hearing the parties found that sufficient explanation was not available on record to condone the delay in filing of written statement, and therefore, the application to take on record the written statement to the counter claim was rejected. This order was put to challenge in revision, wherein revisional court found that filing of the written statement was after a gap of 8 years, for which there was no satisfactory explanation on record, and consequently, the revision was also rejected. It is these two orders dated 14.7.2014 and 20.12.2014, which are under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff petitioner is 58 years’ old lady, who had instituted suit for injunction in the year 2005, after having purchased the property by way of registered sale deed in the year 2003. It is submitted that the plaintiff petitioner had been bona fidely pursuing the matter, and there has never been any act on her part, which could even remotely suggest any mala fide conduct on her part, to delay the disposal of the proceedings. It is submitted that the plaintiff has been