TRIYUGI NATH Vs. ADDL DISTT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. A suit for eviction and for arrears of damages was filed. The summons was served upon the defendant on 12-7-2004. The written statement was to be filed by 12-10-2004, i. e. , within 90 days from the date of the service of the summons. The defendant did not file the written statement within the said period. On 21-10-2004, an adjournment application was moved by the defendant praying for an adjournment on the ground that his Counsel was suffering from a viral fever. The Court by an order dated 28-10-2004 rejected the application of the defendant and directed that the case to proceed ex parte, since the defendant had not filed a written statement. An application for recall of this order was filed by the defendant alleging that the written statement was ready, but could not be filed, as his Counsel was unwell, and therefore, prayed that the order be recalled and the defendant be permitted to file the written statement. The Court below, after hearing the parties, allowed the recall application and recalled its order dated 21- 10-2004 and permitted the defendant to appear and contest the matter, but debarred the defendant from filing his written statement. A second application was filed by the defendant again praying that the defendant should be permitted to file the written statement, as there was only a small delay and that there was no intention on his part to delay the proceedings. This application was rejected by an order dated 13-7-2006 on the ground that no written statement could be permitted to be filed after the expiry of 90 days. Consequently, the writ petition.

(2.) HEARD Sri Ashish Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. B. Paul, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) IN the opinion of the Court, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents is bereft of merit.