PANDIT NARAIN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relating to this reference to a Division Bench have been detailed in the referring order. It is not necessary to set out many details here. The plaintiff has filed a suit in which the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority are the defendants. The Union of India has been praying for time to file its written statement and has been granted adjournments for this purpose. On 6-9-1981, it was urged by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the time to be granted to the Union of India for filing its written statement could not be extended for more than two months because of the amendment to O. 27, R. 5, Civil P. C. in 1976. In any event, both the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority have filed their written statements along with applications praying for condoning the delay in filing the same.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the time cannot be extended in the case of the Union of India, so the matter has been referred to this larger bench for deciding the following four points :

(3.) We have examined the various provisions of law and we think that it would be useful to recall that O. 27. R. 5 has been in the Code from the beginning and has presented no difficulty in interpretation. The only addition made in 1976 were the words : "but the time so extended shall not exceed two months in the aggregate". This has led to the contention that the time for filing the written statement cannot be extended by more than two months. If the other provisions of the Code are examined along with this provision, the provision may not appear to give rise to such a controversy.