MURARI LAL Vs. RAJKUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the orders dated 1st September, 2007, 7th November, 2007 and 4th December, 2007 (Annexure-1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition), whereby the learned trial court gainsaid the defendants no. 2 and 3-petitioners to file the written statement.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

(3.) ADVERTING to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that what to talk of service of summons on petitioners-defendants no. 2 and 3, even the respondent-plaintiff did not endeavour to file their summon notices in the court. Despite repeated reminders by the Court, the respondent-plaintiff did not file the summons of the petitioners in the court. Thereafter on 25th May 2007, when Smt. Ratan Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant no. 1, she gave an undertaking to file the powers on behalf of defendants no. 2 and 3 also but till 1st November, 2007 neither service of summons had taken place on the petitioners-defendants no. 2 and 3 nor Smt. Ratan Sharma had filed powers on their behalf. Hence, from no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the order rendered by the learned trial court on 1st September, 2007 with regard to gainsaying defendants no. 2 and 3 to file the written statement of defence was legal, correct and apt. E Converso, the order is found to be totally perverse, contrary to the provisions of law and arbitrary, which needs to be set-aside. So far as other impugned orders dated 7th November, 2007 as also 4th December, 2007 are concerned, they are also related to gainsaying the petitioners-defendants no. 2 and 3 for presenting the written statement of their defence. Hence, these orders also deserve to be set-aside.