LIYAKHATH ALI Vs. H N LOHITHESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY my order dated 25-2-2004, i had allowed the writ petition and had directed the learned trial Judge to accept the written statement filed by the defendant, though belatedly, and to proceed with the suit. This was in the forenoon session.

(2.) IN the afternoon session, one of the learned counsels appearing for the respondent in some other case did bring to my notice the observations made by the Apex court in the case of Dr. J. J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635 : (AIR 2002 SC 2931) and contended that the defendant before the trial Court is expected to file the written statement within the time prescribed under the provisions of O. 8, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (amended provisions ). Having gone through the decision, I was of the view that I might have committed a mistake in the morning session while allowing the writ petition. Therefore, I had directed the registry to post this matter for Being Spoken To on 26-2-2004 to hear the learned counsel for the parties to the lis once over again.

(3.) AT this stage itself, I should notice that similar matters were posted before me on earlier occasions also. In fact, I had allowed the writ petitions condoning the delay in filing the written statements and then had directed the learned. trial Judges to accept the written statements and to proceed with the suit. In some cases, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents themselves had agreed for disposal of the writ petitions and to direct the trial Court to permit the defendants to file their written statements. In some cases, the delay in filing the written statement was just three (3) to ten (10) days, and therefore, in the ends of justice, I had thought that the defendants should be allowed to file their written statements and to participate in the proceedings before the trial Court.