KARAM CHAND Vs. BILLU & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 has instituted a civil original suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction before the Court of learned Munsiff, Kathua against the petitioner-defendant No. 1. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.07.2012, on failure of the petitioner-defendant No. 1 to file written statement, closed the right to file the same. It is this order which is called in question in this petition filed under Sec. 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 1 submitted that the fault in filing the written statement was neither deliberate nor intentional, but it was because of the mistake of the learned counsel, who forget to file the written statement within the period prescribed by the Court. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon the judgments of Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2005 (3) Civil Court Cases 368 (SC), Rani Kusum Vs. Kanchan Devi and Ors., 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 356 (SC), Sambhaji and Ors. Vs. Gangabai and Ors., 2008 (3) Civil Court Cases 081 (SC), Zolba Vs. Keshao and Ors.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-plaintiff vehemently argued the case and submitted that it was the duty of the petitioner-defendant No. 1 to file written statement within the period prescribed by the Court and also by the statute. He further submitted that learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 1 has not filed any application seeking extension of time for filing written statement. Learned counsel submitted that pleadings of the writ petition are a bundle of contradictions and do not make out a case for allowing further time to the petitioner-defendant No. 1 to file written statement. Learned counsel submitted that no reasonable cause has been projected in the writ petition to enable the petitioner-defendant No. 1 to file written statement beyond the prescribed period. Learned counsel further submitted that the intention of making amendments in the Civil Procedure Code is to ensure that suits are decided within the reasonable despatch. Learned counsel submitted that if prayer of the petitioner-defendant No. 1 is allowed then the very purpose of the legislative amendments would stand defeated.