TREND SETTERS Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 20th July, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 151 CPC. The respondent/defendant had moved the said application under Section 151 CPC so as to place its written statement on record for defending the suit filed by the present petitioner on its merits. The said application of the respondent/defendant was allowed by the Trial Court and the written statement filed by the respondent was directed to be taken on record subject to imposition of costs of Rs. 4,000/-. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. I have heard Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. Datta, learned counsel for the respondent, who has appeared at the admission stage. Counsel for the petitioner has taken serious exception to the filing of the application by the respondent/defendant under Section 151 CPC ignoring the specific statutory provision ordained in the CPC to deal with the situation and contingency envisaged therein. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent has filed an application under Section 151 CPC although there is a specific provision in the CPC to take recourse to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that once the specific provision is there in the Statute, the parties cannot invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC. In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 256 titled National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs C. Parameshwara; and in (1999) 1 SCC 37 titled Mahabir Prasad Singh vs Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 titled Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors. to contend that the extension can only be granted by the Court as an exception after taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the defendant and also duly recorded in writing by the Court in its order to its satisfaction. Counsel contends that no plausible reasons were advanced by the respondent in the application moved under Section 151 CPC for the condonation of such a long delay. Counsel for the respondent, who is appearing on advance notice, submits that sufficient reasons have been given by the respondent in paras No. 4 and 5 of the reply placed at pages 45 and 46 of the paper book. Counsel submits that inspection in question is related to the period before unbuilding of the erstwhile DVB and coming into existence of the present respondent/defendant. Counsel states that the relevant file pertaining to the inspection and other documents of the present case were not traceable with the concerned district of the respondent, therefore, parawise comments could not be prepared by the legal department of the respondent/defendant and, therefore, the written statement could not be placed before the Court within the period of 90 days from the date of the service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash vs Nankhu and Ors. (supra) has held that the said provision of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the person seeking time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement must give reasons for the delay in filing the written statement. The Apex Court has also held that the Court is not powerless to permit a written statement being filed if the Court may require such written statement and the Court need not pronounce judgment against the defendant, who failed to file the written statement. The Court has also held that all the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice and the language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that no straitjacket formula can be laid down for examining the circumstances, but however the time schedule contemplated by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC shall be the rule and departure therefrom an exception, which can be only made for satisfactory and sufficient reasons. It would be worthwhile to refer to the following paras of the said judgment of the Apex Court reported in Kailash vs Nanhku (Supra)