RAM NATH ALIAS RAM NATH SHARMA Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.2.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Agra dismissing Civil Revision No. 4 of 2008 and orders dated 20/21.11.2017 and 3.5.2019 passed by the trial court.

(2.) The fact of the case are alarming. The plaintiff-respondent instituted Suit No. 703 of 2003 against the petitioners for permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants were duly served with summons on 25.04.2004. They did not file written statement within 30 days as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. They also did not file written statement within further period of 90 days. They filed the written statement on 10.2.2005 i.e. much after the expiry of statutory period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. The plaintiff objected to the filing of the written statement beyond statutory period and whereupon, the defendant-petitioners filed an application 62-Ga dated 23.10.2007 for condoning delay in filing the written statement. In the application, the petitioners stated that they had filed WS without unnecessary delay. They also stated that negligible delay, if any, in filing the written statement be condoned. The trial court by order dated 20/21.11.2017 relying on judgment of Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and Others, 2005 AIR(SC) 2441 and other judgments following the said judgment, rejected the application 62-Ga filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay in filing written statement and directed for proceedings being held as per Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 4 of 2008. The same was dismissed by order dated 28.2.2009. The petitioner did not challenge the order of the Revisional Court before any higher court but instead, filed an application 127-Ga for review of the order dated 20/21.11.2007. The petitioners succeeded in getting the proceedings of the suit delayed on basis of the said application for twelve years. The application has ultimately been dismissed by the trial court by order dated 3.5.2019.

(3.) The sole submission made by Shri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the court below erred in refusing to take on record the written statement. It is urged that there was delay of only few days and therefore, the courts below ought to have taken the written statement on record, as the interest of the plaintiff could be safeguarded by imposing cost. It is also urged that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are only directory in nature and therefore, the courts ought not to have taken a technical view in the matter.