JASVINDAR KAUR Vs. CHARANJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenge is made to an order Annexure P-1 dated 1.4.2004 by which petitioner's right to file written statement has been closed and an application filed under Order 8 Rule 10 by plaintiff respondent has been allowed closing the right of the petitioner to file written statement. It is the case of the petitioner that as an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by him on 5.10.2002 was pending, he could not file the written statement in time. On 20.10.2003 plaintiff-respondent filed an application for closing right of the petitioner to file written statement. It was only on 26.3.2004 that the argument on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected and on the same day application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for closing the right of the petitioner was allowed. Petitioner claims for quashing the order and permit him to file his written statement. In support of his contention petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Mithumal v. Ku. Kavita [2003 (II) MPWN SN 102] and Asarfilal v. Smt. Vimla Devi [2003 (II) MPWN SN 101]. Per contra, Shri Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel argued that inspite of repeated opportunities being granted to the petitioner, written statement has not been filed. According, learned Court has exercised jurisdiction under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC which is in accordance with law, therefore, no case for interference is made out. In support of his contention Shri Chaturvedi invites my attention to certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani [(2003) 7 SCC 350].

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is seen that the only reason indicated by the Court for not taking the written statement on record and closing the right of petitioner is that written statement was not filed within 90 days. Reasons explained for not filing the same was that petitioner's application under section 10 CPC was pending and they were awaiting decision on the said application. In the case of Mithumal (supra) and Asrafilal (supra), it has held by a Bench of this Court that even after amendment to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, trial Court is empowered to take on record written statement filed beyond the period of 90 days if sufficient reason for delay is furnished. Even the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra) has observed that Court has discretion to permit filing of belated written statement but such discretion should be exercised in reasonable manner keeping in view the relevant circumstances of the case, conduct of the defendant and the likelihood of any prejudice to the plaintiff or loss of vested right accrued to him.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , petition and MWP 555/04 stand allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.