TARLOK SINGH Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT , by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed order dated 04.01.2013 (Annexure P 1) and order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the trial court. Vide order Annexure P 1, defence of defendant petitioner was struck off due to non filing of written statement. Vide order dated 22.08.2013, application Annexure P 5 dated 20.03.2013, filed by the defendant for recall of order Annexure P 1 and for granting opportunity for filing written statement has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(3.) CONDUCT of the defendant petitioner appears to be mala fide and his intention appears to be to delay the disposal of the suit. The defendant had put in appearance in the trial court on 08.11.2012, and therefore, even if his counsel went abroad on 26.12.2012, the defendant had ample time of seven weeks for preparing the written statement. On the other hand, even after the defendant's counsel returned to India on 09.02.2013, the defendant did not take immediate steps for moving application Annexure P 5, which was filed on 20.03.2013 i.e. 2 1/2 months after passing of order Annexure P 1 and almost 40 days after his counsel returned from abroad. Moreover, the defendant, instead of filing application Annexure P 5, should have straightway challenged order Annexure P 1 by filing revision petition in this Court. However, defendant adopted circuitous route to challenge order Annexure P 1 by filing application Annexure P 5 in the trial court, manifesting the intention of the defendant to delay the disposal of the case. His claim in application Annexure P 5 that his defence was struck off before expiry of 90 days for filing the written statement, is also completely untenable because the defendant does not have period of 90 days as a matter of right to file written statement. On the contrary, the defendant has period of 30 days as a matter of right to file the written statement and the said period of 30 days also starts from the date of service of summons and not from the date of first appearance in the Court. In the instant case, the defendant has not even stated as to when he received the summons. The aforesaid period of 30 days is extendable to maximum of 90 days for sufficient reasons. However, neither on 15.12.2012 nor on 04.01.2013 ­ the dates fixed for filing of written statement by the defendant, no sufficient ground was advanced before the trial court for seeking further adjournment for filing of written statement. Even the instant revision petition was not filed promptly after passing of impugned order dated 22.08.2013, but has been filed after seven weeks thereof.