VIKRAM SINGH Vs. CHANDER PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) The only grievance made in this petition is that the learned lower Appellate Court vide the impugned order has permitted the defendants to file written statement after the statutory period of 90 days had elapsed without there being any written application and no cogent reason being given.

(2.) In support of his contention Shri Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. Aditya Hotels (P) Limited vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Limited and others, (2007) 14 SCC 431, wherein the Apex Court has reiterated the observations made by it in Kailash vs. Nanhku wherein it was stated that (2005) 4 SCC 480, extension of time beyond 90 days should not be granted merely for the asking and reasons must be spelt out for a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1.

(3.) The impugned order reads as follows:-