HEM CHANDRA BANSAL Vs. MAYA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants whose written statement has been rejected by the Court below under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. on the ground that it has been presented beyond the stipulated period. It transpires that there is a delay of approximately two months in the filing of the written statement. According to the petitioners, there was no deliberate delay, inasmuch as, at the time when the written statement was being filed, it came to their knowledge that copy of the plaint that was presented to them was a different copy and, accordingly, they requested the Court to direct the plaintiff to provide a true copy of the plaint which the Court directed. Thereafter, within the stipulated time granted by the Court to file the written statement, the same was done by the defendant. Consequently, the delay of approximately two months is on account of the aforesaid facts.

(3.) On the other hand, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that there was no application at the behest of the defendant in filing an application for condoning the delay and keeping the written statement on record.