COLLECTOR Vs. MOHINI WOOLLEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant petitioners impugn the order of the trial Sub-Judge dated July 27, 1982, whereby he has chosen to proceed with the trial of the suit in the absence of any written statement by them. Briefly stated the facts leading to the passing of this order are as follows :

(2.) In a suit filed by the respondent concern for the recovery of Rs. 2500/- as unliquidated damages, the defendants were served for April 27, 1982 to put in appearance and to answer the claim of the plaintiff. On that day the Government Pleader appeared on their behalf and the Court adjourned the case to June 11, 1982, to enable them to file the written statement. On June 11, 1982, not only the Government Pleader was on leave but also no written statement was filed. The case was adjourned to July 27, 1982 for the same purpose. Once again the defendants failed to file the written statement on that day and it was in that situation that the Court passed the impugned order. As is well indicated by the order itself, the learned Sub-Judge formed the view that since the defendants had been allowed more than two months' time to file the written statement, they could not be granted any further time in view of the provisions of Order 27, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Bedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners now urges that the learned Sub-Judge placed entirely a wrong interpretation on the provisions of Rule 5 and thus erred in the exercise of his discretion to grant time to the petitioners to file the written statement. This rule reads as follows :-