VIJAY GOPAL JINDAL Vs. SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of these two applications. I. A. No. 1150 of 2009 is made by the defendants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The defendants were served on 22nd August, 2008 and the written statement has been filed on 21st January, 2009 along with this application for condonation of delay.

(2.) THE reasons as given in the application are that after service of summons on defendants at Kolkata address, he took some time for engaging the services of present counsel and the present counsel was given instructions for drafting the written statement. However, the same could not be prepared as the file of the defendants got misplaced by the counsel during the process of shifting his office from 18, Rouse Avenue, Kotla Lane to A-9, Sector 9, Noida office and the files could be traced only in November, 2008 and soon thereafter, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC being I. A. No. 14345 of 2008 was made. It is stated that the suit was at very initial stage and was listed for consideration of applications under Order 39 and, therefore, no harm would be caused to the plaintiff if the present application of the defendants was allowed and delay of 121 days in filing the written statement is condoned.

(3.) IN the application made under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC being I. A. No. 1152 of 2009, the plaintiff has stated that this court directed service of defendants vide order dated 8th August, 2008 and simultaneously granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The plaintiff in compliance with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 cpc served a copy of the plaint, applications and documents on the defendants vide letter dated 13th August, 2008 and this letter was duly served on the defendants on 18th August, 2008 in view of the A. D. card. However, even otherwise summons send by the court were also served on defendants on 22nd august, 2008. The defendants though filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 cpc for vacation of ad-interim injunction did not file the written statement and the written statement was not filled till filing of the application by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiff, therefore, asked for pronouncement of judgment or passing such an order in relation to the suit as court deems fit.