HAFIZUR REHMAN @ PAPPU Vs. KAHKASHAN BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Safiq Mirza, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Humayun Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that Suit No.50 of 2014 was filed by respondent no.1 for injunction. Trial Court granted opportunity to file written statement but the same could not be filed before the trial court. On 16.11.2015, opportunity was granted to file written statement on payment of cost, but written statement was not filed. The petitioner moved an application on 19.4.2016 for grant of permission to file written statement. The application was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application No.C-59 for recall of the order dismissing the application for grant of permission to file written statement. The application was dismissed on 21.2.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed written statement on 24.4.2017 and moved an application to accept the written statement before the court below. By means of the impugned order dated 18.9.2017, the application of the petitioner dated 24.4.2017 has been rejected on the ground that the order dated 21.2.2017 has not been assailed before any Forum nor an application has been moved for recall of the order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the District Judge which has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2019 affirming the order passed by the trial court.

(3.) Assailing the impugned orders, the submission of learned Senior Advocate is that the cause of action while rejecting the application vide order dated 21.2.2017 and the application for acceptance of written statement were in different proceedings, therefore, both the courts below have committed gross illegality in not considerating the aforesaid aspects of the matter.