SHAH MOHAMMAD Vs. INCHARGE DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) A short question involved in this case is that according to amendment done in the Code of Civil Procedure, the written statement should have been filed by the defendant petitioner within a statutory stipulated period. Since the petitioner had not filed the written statement within period provided under Order VIII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure i.e. the period of 90 days petitioner's application has been rejected by the trial Court as well as revisional Court on the ground that there is no provision for extention of time in the amended Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly petitioner has lost his right to file the written statement.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court, AIR 2003 Delhi 280, Dr. Sukhdev Singh v. Amrit Pal Singh and Ors., the Delhi High Court while interpreting the relevant provision of the amended Code of Civil Procedure arrived to the conclusion that the delay in filing the written statement may be condoned by the Court in case grounds are sufficient. Paras 5 and 6 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: " 5. Having heard Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the respective pleas urged before me. I am of the view that this is a case where the delay in filing of the written statement deserves to be condoned. Firstly it is a suit for partition concerning a family members where every endeavour should be made for amicable settlement. Even otherwise, the mandate under Section 89 effort ought to be made to settle the matter. Secondly, the defendant had already filed the written statement in the suit in District Court. Hence it could not be the situation that the defendant was delaying the case, but on account of the attempts at settlement written statement was not filed. Next the learned Counsel expressed reservation that the defendant would attempt to improve its case. In case any pleas are sought to be taken which are inconsistent with the earlier written statement or any admission is sought to be withdrawn, it is always to the plaintiff to assail the same, Mr. Sanghi states that certain subsequent events are only sought to be brought on record. I need not go into this question at this stage. 6. Reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank, AIR 2002 SC 2487, wherein while dealing with the time limit prescribed for filing reply under Section 13 (2) (a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Court held as under at page 2489-2490: