RAJNEESH GOYAL Vs. DSJ COMMUNICATIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been made under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement on 3rd March, 2008 and is accompanied with WS. The application is dated 7th March, 2008.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for deciding this application are that a suit for recovery of Rs. 33,93,290/- was filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant on 23rd August, 1999. The suit came up for hearing before Court on 1st September, 1999 and directions were given for issuing summons to the defendant for settlement of issues returnable for 9th December, 1999. Defendant could not be served initially, however, Defendant was served and put appearance on 4th July, 2000. Defendant did not file WS and instead made an application under Section 22 (1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 seeking stay of proceedings in the suit. This application remained pending because of death of Plaintiff in between and LRs of Plaintiff were brought on record. Vide order dated 3rd May, 2002 Defendant was directed to file up-to-date copy of the order sheet of the proceedings before BIFR in order to indicate the present status of the proceedings. Thereafter, Defendant did not appear on 29th October, 2002. On 26th February, 2003 Defendant informed the Court that reference was rejected by BIFR however, the Defendant had preferred an appeal before the AAIFR. The case was adjourned from time to time and no WS was filed by the Defendant. The appeal before AAIFR, filed by the Defendant, was posted for hearing on 19th January, 2004 However, this Court vide order dated 17th november, 2003 adjourned the suit sine die with liberty to the parties to move the Court as and when a decision is taken by the Appellate Authority. On issuance of a notice by this Court parties appeared before the Court on 29th august, 2005 and informed that appeal before AAIFR was still pending. However, finding that there was no stay against the order of BIFR rejecting the reference, the case was revived and Defendant was asked to file WS by this Court vide order dated 21st March, 2007 within 30 days from that day. Parties were also asked to file all documents and complete the pleadings and the admission/denial of documents. Despite this specific direction, no WS was filed, instead Defendant filed a review of the order which was dismissed. Till 20th February, 2008, no WS was filed by the Defendant and more time was sought by Counsel for Defendant for filing WS which this Court did not allow and the matter was fixed for arguments. In between, present application was filed.

(3.) IT is stated in the application that Defendant was a sick company and reference was filed before BIFR under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act in 1998. This reference was rejected by BIFR on the ground that Defendant company was not satisfying the basic criteria of performing any industrial activity of its own and was getting all its printing work done from outside on job work basis. Against this order Defendant preferred an appeal to AAIFR. AAIFR vide its order dated 9th November, 1999 remanded back the matter to BIFR for fresh consideration. Subsequent to the remanding back, BIFR took up the matter on 29th March, 2000 and inter alia gave directions that the recovery suits already filed against the company could be continued but no fresh suit should be filed or decrees, if any, obtained executed without prior approval of BIFR (emphasis added ). The reference of the company before BIFR was finally rejected by BIFR on 26th September 2002. This order was challenged before the AAIFR and AAIFR vide its order dated 11th June, 2007 set aside the order of BIFR dated 26th September, 2002 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. It is stated that this Court vide order dated 21st march, 2007 had directed the Defendant to file WS within one month, the defendant preferred a Review Petition of this order which came up on various dates and ultimately was dismissed on 11th January, 2008. The Defendant's counsel collected the copy of order passed in Review Petition on 12th February, 2008 and sought instructions from Defendant and sent WS to the Defendant company. It took some time to Defendant Company to locate the documents and hence WS was filed in the month of March, 2008 along with the application. It is stated that in view of these circumstances WS be taken on record and delay in filing WS should be condoned. The applicant was entitled for condonation of delay since applicant was a sick industrial company.