SHIVANGI KIRTI Vs. YOGESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE exact date on which the Defendant was served with summons/notice of the present Suit need not be ascertained for the reason that he had chosen to file several applications in these proceedings as far back as on May 16, 2006. The Written Statement ought to have been filed; by him within thirty days of service. An affidavit of service has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner stating that a complete set of papers were despatched to the Defendant on 25. 4. 2006. They would have been received by the defendant on or before 1. 5. 2006. On 10. 7. 2006 the Defendant was granted four weeks time within which to file the Written Statement which expired on 7th August, 2006.

(2.) IN connected criminal proceedings the Defendant has been granted interim bail as far back as on 7. 1. 2006. The Defendant's bail was cancelled on 19. 8. 2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge. However, he was again granted interim protection by Order dated 23. 8. 2006. In those proceedings, parties have been directed to appear before the High Court in order to arrive at a settlement. Counsel for the Defendant is unable to disclose the terms or any suggestion made by the Defendant by way of an amicable settlement.

(3.) NINETY days have long expired from May 1, 2006. Even the time permitted by this Court on 10. 7. 2006 for filing Written Statement has expired. In Texstyles v. Kiran Overseas Export Limited, 2004 VII AD (Delhi) 98:2004 (77) DRJ 299,i had, with specific reference to the Delhi high Court Rules and Orders, held that Courts in Delhi do not have any discretion for extending time for filing Written Statement beyond ninety days. This view, however, stands modified by the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480 which are to the effect that the statutory amendments are directory in nature. Even in that judgment, however, it has been adumbrated that the permission or enlargement of time beyond ninety days would be justified in very rare cases and for extremely good reasons. The same view has been expressed in salen Advocate Bar Association, T. N. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 supreme Court Cases 344. Even though four applications came to be filed by the Defendant on May 16, 2006, he has not bothered to file any application for further extension of time, an action that has been seen as essential by the Apex Court.