GURTEJ SINGH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 18.2.2003, denying the petitioner right to file written statement and order dated 26.7.2006 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and permission to file the written statement was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the respondent filed suit against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as principal and interest, on 5.8.2002. After service of the petitioner, he put in appearance in the Court on 25.11.2002. Thereafter, the case was adjourned five times for filing written statement and was finally fixed on 18.2.2003 and in the absence of the written statement, the petitioner was not allowed any further time to file the written statement and the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that in fact the written statement was ready on 18.2.2003, however, the same could not be filed due to the fact that when the case was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner was held up in some other Court and in his absence, the order declining the right to file written statement was passed. The contention of the petitioner is supported by the fact that immediately on the same date, i.e., 18.2.2003, an application was filed for permission to place on record the written statement by condoning the delay in filing the same. The application was dismissed by the Court below, more than three years thereafter, on 26.7.2006 by passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not at all interested in delaying the proceedings as he had the written statement ready on 18.2.2003 and by the passing of the order declining the petitioner right to file the written statement and, thereafter, due to the pendency of the application filed by the petitioner for permission to file the same by condoning the delay, the trial of the case has unnecessarily been delayed for three years. Had the written statement filed by the petitioner been accepted on the same date, the trial of the suit might have been concluded.