SARABJIT SINGH ANAND Vs. MANJIT SINGH ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) IA No. 9588/2006 Vide this application, the plaintiffs had sought disposal of IA No. 9088/2006, which has already been disposed of on 17th February 2010. This application, therefore, has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. Heard. Admittedly, the defendants did not file written statement within the period stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. They instead filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC being IA No. 9987/2006. No application for extension of time to file written statement was filed by the defendants. The aforesaid application was dismissed vide order dated 11th January 2008, with cost of `20,000/-. The Court, vide another order passed on the same day, permitted the defendants to file written statement within 30 days. Admittedly, written statement has been filed within 30 days computed from 11th January 2008 in the order dated 11th January 2008, permitting the defendants to file written statement within 30 days, there is no reference to IA No. 7527/2007, which had been filed much prior to dismissal of IA No. 9987/2006 and in which the plaintiffs had sought preliminary decree of partition on the ground that written statement had not been filed within the outer limit fixed in this regard under Order 8 of CPC.

(2.) IA No. 8664/2010 has been filed by the plaintiffs on 6th January 2010 seeking amendment of the proceedings of the Court dated 11th January 2008 whereby the defendants were permitted to file written statement within 30 days. The grievance of the plaintiffs, as submitted by plaintiff No.1 Mr Sarabjit Singh Anand, is that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time beyond 90 days and there was no reference to his pending IA No. 7527/2007 in the order dated 11th January 2010.

(3.) It is not permissible for me, sitting as a Predecessor, to amend the order dated 11th January 2008, on an application filed after more than two years of the passing of the order. If the plaintiffs were aggrieved on account of the Court granting time for filing written statement to the defendants despite there being no provision in this regard in the Code of Civil Procedure, the appropriate remedy for them was to challenge that order in the appropriate proceedings or to seek a review of that order.