TARKESHWAR YADAV Vs. SANTOSH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts which the Court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi has decreed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Summon issued to the defendant were served upon him on 27th April 2004. On, 28th April 2004, the date fixed in the suit, the defendant appeared through his counsel but since the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was adjourned to 1st May, 2004. On 1st May, 2004, the defendant appears to have made a request for supply of copies of the documents attached to the plaint upon which the court is said to have orally directed the plaintiff to do the needful and the suit adjourned to 25th May, 2004 for filing of written statement.

(2.) THE defendant -appellant's case is that documents necessary for drafting a written statement were not supplied to him despite demands forcing him to apply for certified copies of the same. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was also in the meantime filed by the defendant. The said application was eventually dismissed on 2nd September, 2004 and the suit posted for filing of the written statement on 4th October, 2004. On 4th October, 2004, by the time the counsel for the defendant reached the court, the matter had been adjourned to 25th October, 2004 on which date the defendant was proceeded ex parte and the suit posted for recording of ex parte evidence on 10th December, 2004. An application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was filed by the defendant which was allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 10th October, 2004 upon payment of costs of Rs. 500/ - and the suit adjourned to 6th January, 2005 for filing of written statement. It was at this stage that the plaintiff moved an application under Order 7I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking a decree against the defendant on account of his failure to file a written statement within the time stipulated under Order 7I of the CPC. The trial court has, by the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal, allowed the said application and rejected the prayer of the defendant for extension of time and decreed the suit. The present appeal, as seen earlier, assails the correctness of the said judgment and decree.

(3.) THE above position was reiterated by their Lordships in Kusum Rani's case (supra) in which the court reiterated the well settled legal proposition that procedural law was only a handmaid for doing justice. The Court observed: