KISHAN MIMANI Vs. SHASHANK KOCHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GA 12 of 2021 is filed by the Defendant No. 1 and 3 with a prayer to extend the period of filing affidavit of documents by a fortnight and time for inspection and discovery of documents be extended for period of four weeks. Contention of the answering Defendants is that although previously this Court allowed time and accommodated the Defendants discovery of documents, for reasons stated, the same could not be filed. Affidavit-in-opposition is filed against the application by the Plaintiff vehemently objecting to further extension of time.

(2.) Mr. Saha, learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No. 1 and 3 submitted that although time was allowed to discover documents it could not be filed. He submitted that although the suit was instituted in the year 1993, and written statement was filed by the Defendant No. 1 and 3 in the year 2002. The Plaintiff applied for discovery of documents only in the year 2019. Thereafter, the Court extended time on various occasions for discovery of documents to the answering Defendants. Pandemic period intervened throughout the year 2020 causing further delay. This apart, as averred in Para 5 of the application, the Defendant No. 3 who has been assigned power from Defendant No. 1, suffered accident for which he was admitted in hospital. That is why delay is caused. However, according to him he is ready to file discovery of documents without delay.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that on repeated occasions the Defendant No. 1 and 3 neglected to file discovery of documents. The answering Defendants indulged themselves in dilatory tactics. Since the suit is very old any such attempt to delay should be stopped. He further submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed time peremptorily to the Defendant No. 1 and 3 which he failed to comply with. In that circumstance a Coordinate Bench cannot act as a Court of Appeal and allow further time and accommodate the Defendant No. 1 and 3. According to him, a valuable right accrued under Order XI Rule 21, to him against the answering Defendant No. 1 and 3 to have their defence struck off. If time is allowed that the valuable right will be lost. He relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court of India, namely, M/s. PARADISE INDUSTRIAL CORPN. Vs. M/s. KILN PLASTICS PRODUCTS (1976) 1 SCC 91, Shri M. L. Sethi Vs. Shri R. P. Kapur (1972) 2 SCC 427.