NUNHEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. PRABHAKAR HYBRID SEEDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of the application filed by defendant under Order 8 Rules 1 and 10 read with Section 151, CPC seeking extension of time in filing written statement and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC seeking pronouncement of judgment against the defendants. Brief background of the facts relevant for deciding the present applications are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from producing, selling and offering to sell seeds which have identical DNA fingerprints to LAKSHMI (NP-5005) of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2,20,00,800/- along with further unascertained damages towards the loss suffered by the plaintiff on account of illegal acts of the defendant, vide orders dated 7.2.2011, this Court directed summons in the suit and notice on the said application, returnable on 27th April, 2011. Nobody had appeared for the defendants on 27th April, 2011 although as per the service report, the defendant was served on 14th March, 2011. On 27th April, 2011 the matter was adjourned for 18th October, 2011 and since nobody had appeared for the defendant on the said date, therefore, the Court directed fresh service of the defendants for the next date. The defendants in the meanwhile, had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC on 15th October, 2011, for rejection of plaint which was taken up by this Court on 18th October, 2011. The plaintiff was directed to file reply to the said application within a period of four weeks and on filing of the reply, the defendant was directed to file rejoinder thereto within a period of two weeks thereafter. In the main suit, Counsel for the defendant made a submission that he would be filing an appropriate application within a week to seek extension of time for filing of written statement and will also file the written statement along with the said application itself. While adjourning the matter for 10th January, 2012 this Court observed in the said order that despite being served on 14th March, 2011 the written statement has not been filed by the defendant so far. Since the defendant had failed to file any written statement or move an application under Order 8 Rules 1 and 10, CPC within the said one week period or later and because of such lapse on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff had moved an application under Order 8 Rule 10, CPC, which application of the plaintiff is under consideration in the present order.

(2.) The plaintiff has moved the said application under Order 8 Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC to seek pronouncement of judgment against the defendant on the ground that the defendant has failed to file the written statement within the time prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC. As per the plaintiff, the time frame of 30 days came to an end on 13.4.2011 from the date of service of the defendant on 14th March, 2011 and even the additional time of 60 days came to an end on 12.6.2011 and that despite the expiry of more than 160 days, the defendant did not file the written statement. Based on these averments, the plaintiff has claimed judgment and decree in its favour. In reply to the said application of the plaintiff and in support of the application filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC, the common plea raised by the defendant is that there is no deliberate or wilful negligence on the part of the defendant in not filing the written statement as the defendant was under the misconception of law that the issue of jurisdiction will be decided by the Court at the first instance. It is also the case of the defendant that although on 18th October, 2011 Counsel for the defendant undertook to file the written statement within a week, but since the mother of the Counsel for the defendant had fallen seriously ill and eventually died on 13.11.2011, therefore, Counsel for the defendant got entangled and could not attend to his professional work and as a result thereof, the written statement could not be filed by the defendant as was undertaken by him. It is also the case of the defendant that the present suit involves highly intricate questions of law and, therefore, extensive research was required to be undertaken on the technical aspects of the matter and this also contributed to the delay on the part of the defendant in filing of the written statement. Counsel for the defendant has also taken a stand that since the written statement has already been filed by the defendant, therefore, taking into account the said bona fide reasons, the delay in filing the written statement be condoned.

(3.) In support of his arguments, Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Jadi and Brothers and Ors. v. Subhashchandra, 2007 7 SLT 24, while Counsel for the defendant strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 1 SCC 557.