IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA th ON THE 18 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 4122 of 2023 MOHAMMAD RAFIQ JINDRAN Versus ASHIK JINDRAN Appearance:

Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri ORDER Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in Case No. 04/02020 by the trial Court by which the right of petitioner/defendant to file written statement has been closed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff/respondent herein has filed a civil suit under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC r/W Section 134 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of Copy Right Act, 1957 for declaration and permanent injunction. The present petitioner was contesting as defendant before the learned trial Court. Plaintiff/respondent herein has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and has also filed application Signature Not Verified under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint which was allowed and he was directed to carry out necessary amendment in the plaint. Petitioner/defendant was duly given several opportunities to file written statement and counter claim against the present respondent. However, petitioner has neither filed written statement nor any application for extension of time in filing the written statement. As per Order 5 Rule 1 and Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, maximum limit to file written statement is 120 days However, petitioner failed to file written statement within the stipulated time limit and therefore the learned trial Court has closed the right of petitioner to file written statement . Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order as the impugned order deprived the petitioner/defendant from filing written statement , which is against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the present petition be allowed and the learned trial Court be directed to allow the petitioner file written statement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order as the impugned order deprived the petitioner/defendant from submitting his written statement which is against the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel further contended that the trial Court ought to have adopted a lenient approach. Petitioner does not want to linger on the Court proceedings. Learned Court below has allowed the application of plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC after closing the right of the petitioner to file written statement. Therefore, the Signature Not Verified present petition be allowed and the learned trial Court be directed to allow the petitioner to file written statement and lead evidence in its support.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. It is apparent from the face of the record that the petitioner has not submitted the written statement within the stipulated time limit in terms Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. All the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.

7. The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge’s conscience and points an