STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ROBOBANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Joint Registrar dated 4th March 2011, whereby she closed the right of defendant No.1 to file written statement. A perusal of the record would show that Ms. Sunita Dutt, counsel for defendant No.1 appeared in this case for defendant No.1 on 28th May 2008 and stated that the complete set of documents had not been supplied to the defendant. The plaintiff undertook to supply the same within a week. Written statement was directed to be filed within the statutory period on supply of complete set of documents. The matter was adjourned to 29th August 2008. On 29th August 2008 it was noticed that written statement had not been filed on behalf of defendant No.1 and it was directed to file the same as per law. On that date no grievance was made by defendant No.1 that copy of the plaint had not been supplied to it. The matter was adjourned to 4th February 2009. On 4 th February 2009 it was again noticed that written statement had not been filed on behalf of defendant No.1 and it was directed to be filed as per law. Again the Court was not informed that copy of the plaint had not been supplied to defendant No.1 and therefore it had not been able to file written statement. On 14th May 2009 it was again noticed that written statement had not been filed by defendant No.1. It was directed to be filed as per law. On 25th January 2010 also it was noted by the Joint Registrar that written statement had not been filed by defendant No.1 and he passed an order that written statement be filed as per law. Even on these dates, there was no grievance expressed by defendant No.1 claiming non supply of the copy of the plaint. On 18th November 2010 no one appeared before the Joint Registrar on behalf of defendant No.1. On 17th February 2011 no one appeared for the parties before the Joint Registrar and the matter was adjourned to 4th March 2011. It was on 4th March 2011 that the Joint Registrar, noticing that written statement had not been filed by defendant No.1 in spite of repeated opportunities, closed its right to file the written statement. On that date the learned counsel for defendant No.1 stated that she had not received the copy of the plaint though copies of documents had been supplied to her. THIS, however, was rebutted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, who stated that he had supplied all the copies in 2008 itself, as per courier receipt in original, being produced in the Court. Admittedly, throughout this period not a single letter was sent by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 to the learned counsel for the plaintiff requesting him to supply a copy of the plaint to her. In these circumstances, I find myself unable to accept the plea that copy of the plaint had not been supplied to defendant No.1 and that is why it could not file the written statement.

(2.) ORDER 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the defendant shall within 30 days of the date of receipt of summons file a written statement. If, however, he fails to file written statement within 30 days he is to be allowed to file the same, within 90 days from the date of service of summons. Even if the period of 90 days is computed from 28th May 2008 when there was appearance on behalf of defendant No.1 for the first time, there is delay of more than three years in filing the written statement.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no such exceptional circumstance or inability on the part of defendant No.1 which would entitle him to invoke the inherent powers of the Court to allow filing of Written Statement after more than 3 years. I find no merit in the appeal and IA and the same are hereby dismissed. This is an application filed by defendant No.1 to determine the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. Since the right of defendant No.1 to file the written statement has been closed, no such application by it is maintainable. The application is misconceived and is dismissed.