RAVINANDANI AND OTHERS Vs. RAJA PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.A. No.4/2015(by D-1 & D-2 against the order dated 6.12.2014 passed by the Joint Registrar)

(2.) Before dealing with the submissions of the counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2, it is considered necessary to refer to some relevant dates for deciding the present Appeal. The present suit was instituted on 7.1.2012 and summons were issued to the defendants on 17.1.2012. As per the order dated 17.10.2012, defendants No.1 & 2 were deemed to be served with the summons in the suit on the basis of pasting. Counsel for the defendants had entered appearance, before the Joint Registrar, on 12.4.2013. However, the written statement came to be filed by the defendants after over seven months, on 16.11.2013. Accompanying the said written statement was an application filed by the defendants No.1 & 2, under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for seeking condonation of delay of 227 days, beyond the extended period of 90 days prescribed under the Statute.

(3.) The explanation offered by the counsel for the defendants No.1 & 2 for filing the belated written statement is that after her marriage, the defendant No.1 is a permanent resident of Canada and her mother, defendant No.2 is a permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh. He states that it is well in the knowledge of the plaintiff, who happens to be the uncle of the defendant No.1 and brother-in-law of the defendant No.2 that the address of the said defendants is not the one furnished in the memo of parties, namely, E-96, 2nd Floor, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-I, New Delhi. Though it is not denied that the said premises is also one of the residential properties, owned by the defendants No.1 & 2, learned counsel states that the plaintiff is well aware of the fact that the defendants do not reside at the Delhi address and the said premises has remained unoccupied for the last several years.