DIPAK SHARMA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SANCHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.N. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.04.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Money Suit No. 3/2017, by which the petition for adjournment was refused by holding that time for filing written statement cannot be extended as the ground shown in the petition No. 1870 dated 10.04.2017 is not justifiable and the suit was order to proceed for plaintiff's evidence by permitting the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. Also in challenge is the order dated 16.11.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, thereby dismissing petition No. 3145 i.e. Misc. (J) Case No. 500/2017 in M.S. No. 3/2017, which was an application filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC with prayer to vacate the order of ex-parte proceeding against the petitioner and to accept the written statement by showing cause.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has explained the reason for not been able to file the written statement on the date fixed. It is submitted that along with the petition under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, the written statement of the petitioner was also enclosed and, as such, on 15.06.2017, when the petition under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC being Misc. (J) Case No. 500/2017 was filed, the written statement of the petitioner was on record. However, the learned trial court held that the ground shown in petition No. 3145 i.e. Misc. (J) Case No. 500/2017 was contrary to the grounds taken in petitions No. 1332 dated 09.03.2017 and 1862 dated 07.04.2017, which were contrary to each other. Hence, by holding that the petitioner has not been unable to show good cause, the written statement was not accepted by the learned trial court.