SUKHDEV SINGH GAMBHIR Vs. AMRIT PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I would be deciding the question whether the written statement filed by the defendants on 4th April, 2003, be permitted to be taken on record by condoning the delay in filing or not?

(2.) Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the written statement has not been filed within the prescribed period. Not only that, it has been filed much beyond 90 days period, upto which the Court could extend the time exercising powers under Order V Rule 1 and Section 148 of the CPC. Written statement is stated to have been filed by the defendants on 4th April, 2003, while defendants are stated to have given eight weeks' time for filing the written statement on 25th May, 1999. Undoubtedly, written statement has been filed after a period of nearly four and half years. The explanation offered by Mr.Vipin Sanghi, learned counsel for the defendant is that this being a suit for partition amongst family members, bona fide attempts were being made to reach at a settlement. It is on account of prolonged negotiations and talks, that resulted in the delay in filing of the written statement.

(3.) Mr.Sanghi submits that the written statement had been ready as far back as November, 2002, but was not filed pending expectation of a settlement. Filing of the written statement would have thwarted the negotiations. He also submits that provisions of Order V Rule I CPC are not applicable to this case.