JINDAL SAW LTD Vs. SAUBHAGYACHAND SHAMBULAL VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Id. Sr. Counsel Mr. P. M. Thakkar for Id. Counsel Mr. Ravindra Shah for the petitioner. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the, petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19-7-2005 Annex. A to the petition whereby the 1d. 5th Jt. Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhuj-Kutch rejected the application exh. 35 in Special Civil Suit No. 24/2004 and to allow application exh. 35 directing the trial Court to take the written statement of the petitioner defendant company on record. 2(i) The petitioner is a Public Limited Company and defendant in a Special Civil Suit No. 24/2004. As the defendant company prayed vide application Exh. 35 that it may be permitted to file written statement in the suit as it could not file written statement in time granted. The day on which the application Exh. 35 was tendered, written statement was also kept along with the application praying permission.

(2.) The Apex Court quashed the order and directed that both the applications viz. application under O. 39, R. 4 filed by the petitioner defendant and the application under O. 39. R. 2(a) filed by the respondent plaintiff be heard together on merits and as early as possible and preferably within two months. In compliance with the order passed by the Apex Court, the ld. Civil Judge rejected the application under O. 39, R. 4 filed by the petitioner defendant, the day on which it refused to permit the defendant to file written statement. (Emphasis, being relevant for the present order, supplied). 4(a). Earlier when the suit was filed and this Court and the Apex Court were approached by the present petitioner the company was contesting the litigation with its earlier name i.e. M/s. Saw Pipe Ltd. The company adopted new name in between and therefore, the present petition is preferred by the company with the new name i.e. Jindal Saw Ltd.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the grounds mentioned in para 3 of the petition. During the course of oral arguments, ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Thakkar pointed out that the ld. Civil Judge has failed in appreciating the purpose of introducing amended Rule 1 of Order 8 of CPC and its ultimate object. It is pointed out that the statements, object and reasons of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 states that :--