UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, by the Union of India, defendant, against the order of Mr. H. K. S. Malik, Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, dated 2nd December, 1970, by which the learned Judge has pronounced the judgment against the defendant petitioner on its failure to file the written statement within the time allowed by the court and the suit has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 325.00 with costs.

(2.) Mr. Y. K. Sabharwal, counsel for the petitioner, has in this revision assailed the legality and validity of the order and decree of the court below. The material facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 325.00 on the ground that the consignment had been booked by Railway to Delhi on 4th May, 1968 and there was short delivery resulting in the loss to the respondent for which the respondent held the Union of India, as owning the Railways concerned, to be liable. The suit was filed on 15th May, 1970 and was registered and summons for final disposal were issued to the defendant for 10th August, 1970. On that date the attorney of the defendant appeared and sought time to file the written statement, which was allowed and the case was adjourned to 10th September, 1970. On that date the defendant through its attorney asked for further time to file the written statement which was again allowed and the case was adjourned to 13th October, 1970. On that date again the defendant stated that the written statement was not ready. Then the court granted a last opportunity to file the written statement and adjourned the case to llth November, 1970. On the said date the wriitten statement was again not filed. The court passed the following order:

(3.) The Union of India has filed this revision and the main ground is that the court ought to have allowed the defendant a further opportunity to file the written statement. I find that there is no substance in this grievance. The court has allowed sufficient time and opportunity to file the written statement from 10th August to 2nd December, 1970 and had even in spiite of two opportunities, given a last opportunity on payment of costs. The conduct of the defendant was certainly contumacious and the court was fully justified in refusing any further adjournment to file the written statement. The court was, therefore, entitled to proceed ex parte against the defendant.