NAVIN JOSHI Vs. SARJU RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 are the Resident Editor and Publisher of the daily newspaper 'Hindustan'.

(2.) A news item was published in the daily newspaper 'Hindustan', in its issue dated 21st of October, 2003 containing several allegations levelled by defendant No. 1 Gulshan Ajmani, a former Member of Legislative Assembly against the plaintiff. Plaintiff asserting that those allegations are false and motivated, filed T.S. No. 79 of 2004 for damage of a sum of Rs. 50 crore impleading Gulshan Ajmani as defendant No. 1 and the Resident Editor and Publisher of 'Hindustan Times, as defendant nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) MR . K.N. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that in case extra ordinary cause is shown, nothing prevents the Court from granting further time to file the written statement. He points out that these defendants are Editor and Publisher of the daily newspaper and were away from the city and in such circumstance, the prayer made by them to file the written statement within a fortnight, ought to have been allowed. In support, of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. : AIR2006SC396 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 9 of the judgment, which reads as follows: