SAROJ BHUTANI Vs. HARJEET SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 23rd February, 2015 whereby the application of the petitioner Saroj Bhutani who was the defendant No. 1 in CS No. 42/14 titled as Harjeet Singh v. Saroj Bhutani & Ors. under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC was dismissed, Saroj Bhutani prefers the present petition. Vide the impugned order, the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application held that Saroj Bhutani has not been able to explain the reason for nonfiling the written statement within time though she was served much prior to 31st August, 2013 and there was a delay of more than 100 days in filing the written statement.

(2.) Harjeet Singh, the respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit against Saroj Bhutani, Dera Ghazi Khan District Refugee Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and DDA seeking a decree of specific performance against Saroj Bhutani and to get a perpetual sub-lease deed of plot No. 319 admeasuring 166.67 sq. yds. situated in the layout plan of Dera Ghazi Khan District Refugee Cooperative Housing Building Society, known as Tarun Enclave, Pitampura (in short the suit property) executed and registered in his favour from the society and DDA; and upon execution and registration get the suit property converted from leasehold to freehold and on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 15 lakh hand over vacant peaceful possession of suit property and execute the registered sale deed in favour of Harjeet Singh. Mandatory and permanent injunction was also prayed for. In the plaint two address of Mrs. Saroj Bhutani were mentioned. The first address was H. No. 89, Model House, Lucknow, U.P. and the alternative address was F-46, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Even in the agreement to sell and purchase entered into between Harjeet Singh and Saroj Bhutani the address of H. No. 89, Model House, Lucknow was mentioned whereas in the general power of attorney executed by Saroj Bhutani in favour of Harjeet Singh the first address of Smt. Saroj Bhutani is of H. No. 89, Model House, Lucknow, U.P. and the alternative address is F-46, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.

(3.) In the application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement Smt. Saroj Bhutani stated that in the last week of August, 2013 she came to know from her brother about the notice of a suit pending before the Court and the next date being 31st August, 2013. Saroj Bhutani being an old lady living alone sometimes at Lucknow with her brother and sometimes at Delhi engaged a Counsel to represent her on her behalf before the Hon'ble Court who appeared on 31st August, 2013, however the learned Presiding Officer was on leave on that date. Learned Counsel for Saroj Bhutani asked for complete set of paper book from the Counsel for the plaintiff and the proceedings were renotified for 8th January, 2014. The service of Saroj Bhutani was effected on 31st August, 2013 when she had gone to Lucknow for some personal work and suffered illness due to some medical problems. There was difficulty in giving instructions to the learned Counsel telephonically. Thus, though the written statement had been drafted by the Counsel on or before 25th September, 2013, however since she was in Lucknow the same could not be signed and filed. After recovering from her health Saroj Bhutani came back to Delhi on 4th January, 2014 and the written statement was filed on 8th January, 2014. Thus, delay in filing the written statement be condoned. Reliance is placed on Kailash v. Nankhhu & Ors., 2005 4 SCC 480.