JAGDISH RAM Vs. NEELAM KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India legality and the correctness of the order dated 27th January, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Una in CMA No. Nil. 6/06 (in Civil Suit No.3/2005) is under challenge. By the impugned order the learned Court below has allowed an application filed by respondent No.1 ­ plaintiff in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying inter alia therein that since the petitioners- defendants in the suit had failed to file the written statement within the period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court may pronounce the judgment against them, or alternatively make such order in relation to the suit as it may think fit. By allowing the aforesaid application filed by respondent No.1 ­ plaintiff, the learned Court below has ordered the striking off of the defence of the petitioners-defendants, meaning thereby that their right to file the written statement has been closed.

(2.) THE petitioners-defendants put in their appearance for the first time in the Court below on 1st February, 2005. The case was fixed for filing the written statement for 7th March, 2005. On that date the learned Presiding Officer of the Court below was on leave and accordingly the case was adjourned for 6th April, 2005, for "proper orders".

(3.) IF a case is listed before a Court on a particular date and on that date the Presiding Officer of that Court is not present in the Court, either owing to his being absent on leave or otherwise and if that particular case on that date is handled by a ministerial staff of that court, the member of the ministerial staff handling the case on that particular date owing to the absence of the Presiding Officer merely notes the absence of the Presiding Officer on the file in the minute sheet meant for that date and puts off the matter for another date. In common parlance it is called as putting off the case on the next date "for orders". In other words, a member of the ministerial staff of the Court, not having any power or authority to pass any effective order because of the absence of the Presiding officer merely informs the parties about the case being put off because of the absence of the Presiding officer and on the next date thus "fixed" by the ministerial staff the case is taken up by the Presiding Officer for passing "proper orders". The member of the ministerial staff of the Court thus only completes the record by noting the absence of the Presiding Officer because in the minute sheet of the file something has to be recorded as to why the case was being adjourned. Being a necessary corollary, therefore, on the next date when the matter comes up for "proper orders", undoubtedly no previous direction having been issued qua a party, that party may not be bound to act in a particular manner on the said date fixed by the ministerial staff for "proper orders" but this will not absolve the party concerned of complying with a statutory requirement of doing a particular act within a particular time bound schedule. Let me illustrate and elaborate.