UMESH RAUT Vs. PHIL CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners. None present for the respondent.

(2.) By Order dated 13th October, 2005 respondent was directed to show cause as to why the petition should not be admitted and disposed of at the motion hearing stage itself. Since none of the defendants have appeared inspite of service of notice, it is apparent that they are not interested in contesting the proceedings. The only grievance which is sought to be made in the petition is that the trial Court inspite of cause having been shown for delay in filing the written statement, the application for condonation of delay has been rejected solely on the ground that the earlier Order dated 31st March, 2005 refusing to extend time for filing written statement by some of the defendants was not challenged.

(3.) Perusal of the impugned order disclose that the trial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement solely on the ground that on 31st March, 2005 the request by some of the defendants for extension of period for filing the written statement, was rejected. However, there has been absolutely no consideration of various contentions which were raised on behalf of the petitioners who are the defendants in the suit in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.