VASUDEVA ACHARYA Vs. S K VAMAN BALIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioners learned advocate. The record shows that the notice was issued to the respondent and the learned advocate who represents the respondent and they have remained absent.

(2.) THE short point is as to whether one is to construe it that it is the fundamental right of a party to a litigation or for that matter the lawyer representing the party, to take any number of adjournments irrespective of what the grounds or the situation is. The present case is a classic instance where a written statement was not filed despite 18 adjournments having been taken. All that the plaintiff did was to point out that under the amended CPC that there is a specific deadline or a time frame that has been specified for the filing of the written statement and that once this period lapses, it is not open even to the court to grant further time. The petitioner before me filed an application before the trial court requesting to pronounce judgment as the suit was virtually uncontested in so far as no written statement had been filed. Despite this application, the Presiding Officer of the court has granted further time. It is against this order that the present CRP has been preferred.

(3.) THIS case represents a most disastrous state of affairs and further more, what aggravates the situation is the fact that despite the plaintiff who is an aggrieved party pointing out the legal position to the Presiding Officer that time was still granted. I am informed at the Bar that even after the date on which the time was granted, that some more dates of hearing came up and that the time has been further extended.