COMPLETE DEWATERING SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs. DSC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs.23,88,505/ - along with interest. Admittedly, defendants were served with the summons in the suit in the month of June 2012. The order sheet reveals that on 03.07.2012 counsel for the defendant had entered appearance and undertaken to file his vakalatnama within one week. 30 days' time was granted to file the written statement. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 14.9.2012. On the said date, the Joint Registrar noticed that neither the vakalatnama nor the written statement had been filed. Time was granted to the plaintiff to file affidavit by way of evidence and the matter was adjourned to 21.02.2013, on which date plaintiff's witness was examined and discharged. No written statement was on record even on that day but a submission was made by learned counsel for the defendant that the written statement had already been filed on 20.12.2013. Opportunity was granted to cross -examine the witness of the plaintiff. However, no cross -examination was conducted by the defendant. This application has been filed on 20.02.2013 by the defendant seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The only ground which has been raised in the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement is as under: -

(2.) MR .Dholakia, learned counsel for the applicant has strongly urged before the Court that the delay in filing the written statement is neither deliberate nor intentional but solely on account of the fact that the documents having a bearing on the present matter were not available with the defendant by virtue of having been seized by the CBI. Mr.Dholakia has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court Zolba v. Keshao & Ors. reported at (2008) 11 SCC 769 in support of his submission that it is well within the power of the Court to grant extension of time in filing the written statement.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. It is no longer res integra that time can be extended in filing the written statement even after 90 days of service of summons. However, time is to be extended only in exceptional cases where sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The Apex Court in the case of Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors. reported at AIR 2005 SC 2441 has laid down in detail the object and purpose behind enacting Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and exceptional circumstances under which the Court may extend the time for filing the written statement. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment have been reproduced below: -