STANGEN PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. RAKESH GUPTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order dated 4th December, 1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala striking off the defence of the Defendant -Petitioner on the ground that costs were not paid and no written statement was filed despite three effective opportunities having been granted to it. Alongwith the revision petition, an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, 'the Act') and also Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code') seeking condonation of delay of 1396 days has also been filed claiming that 1411 days have been spent in a bona fide belief prosecuting another civil proceeding in the trial Court itself.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case unfolded in the pleadings of this case necessary to decide the controversy raised in this petition are that the Plaintiff -Respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 17th September, 1996 passed by Defendant -Respondent No. 2 terminating the services of the Plaintiff -Respondent as Professional Service Representative is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice etc. with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant -Petitioner from enforcing the afore -mentioned order. Notice of the suit was given and the Defendant -Petitioner appeared in the trial Court on 19th August, 1997 when the case was adjourned to 30th September, 1997 for filing of the written statement by him. On 30th September, 1997, no written statement was filed by the Defendant -Petitioner and the case was adjourned to 5th November, 1997. A request for adjournment for filing of written statement was made and the case was adjourned to 4th December, 1997 subject to payment of Rs. 300 as costs. On 4th December, 1997, neither the costs were paid despite demand nor the written statement was filed which resulted into passing of the following order:

(3.) I have heard Shri Sanjiv Walia learned Counsel for the Defendant - Petitioner and Shri Vimal Kumar, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Respondent and have perused the record with their assistance.