AMAR RICE MILLS Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court impugning the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned Court below, vide which their right to file written statement has been closed and the case has been put up for evidence of the plaintiff-respondent herein.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a Civil Suit was filed by the respondent-Bank against the petitioners on 29.05.2019, in which petitioners were served on 27.08.2019. However, copy of the plaint was not accompanying the notice. Hence, the petitioners were not able to prepare and file their written statement. When the case was listed before the Court below on 01.10.2019, the petitioners had put in their appearance and the copy of the Suit and the annexures were supplied to them at that time. Time was sought to file the written statement. The case was adjourned to October 30, 2019. As the petitioner No. 2 is about 80 years of age and was not keeping good health and was even operated upon, though the written statement was prepared, however, the same could not be signed and filed in the Court. On 28.01.2020, the learned Court below rejected the application of the petitioners for extension of time to file written statement and their right to file the same was closed and the case was put up for evidence on 22.03.2020.

(3.) Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled M/s Nahar Enterprises v. M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. and another (2007) 9 SCC 466, it was submitted that when summons are sent requiring the defendants to appear and file written statement, it is obligatory on the Court to send copy of the plaint and the documents annexed thereto. In the absence, the defendants cannot be said to at default.