STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GOPAL MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISERABLE conditions of the affairs of the State have been highlighted by the parties before the Court. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the non -petitioner that the petitioner State was directed to file the written statement in the year 1979 but it was failed to file the written statement. On 8.2.1980, it was directed by the Court that the State shall not be allowed to file the written statement. The State has also number of innings in getting the orders passed against it for its defaults. All orders were set aside on one ground or the other in the payment of costs. On 7.9.1981, an opportunity was given to the State to file the written statement 15.10.1981. However, the fate of the tax payer was bound to suffer for not fault of his and State had the pleasure in not complying with the orders of the Court. It seems that neither the Officer Incharge nor the Advocate was interested in presenting the case of the State and the fate of the State was put in the hands who were not considering that the case of the State should be pleaded well. This is nothing now. It is the every day affairs and the Court is taking a note of it that the State cause in suffering for its own fault and the tax payer is being re lalised for not fault of his Every time, the costs of adjournment has been paid to the non -petitioner and the tax payer is sufferer. If the State wants to improve the image then it should take disciplinary action against the Officer Incharge and should also take note of the fact that its counsel are not attending the work in the right earnest. In this respect, no direction can be given the fate of prior tax payer is in the hart's of the State and how fate is to be looked nto depends on the State. Mr. B.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to Sushila Jain v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation Jaipur 1979 MLN 620 wherein this Court held that the trial court was justified in forfeiting the defendant's right to present a written statement of her defence. He has further invited my attention to Bindeshwari Kamkar v. Radha AIR 1979 Pat. 79 wherein the defendant did not file the written statement within the time permitted by the Court and the Court, therefore, said that no further time would be granted and fixed the case of bearing; while doing so, the court further said that the defendant would be entitled to take part in the proceedings of the suit even in the absence of the written statement. It was held that the order did not suffer from any illegality.

(2.) WE can find number of cases in which the question of the submission of the written statement has been considered not only by this Court but various High Courts and the Supreme Court also. It is well settled that the Court has power to forfeit the right in the matter of submission of the written statement. Mr. Purohit, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate submits that the case was fixed on October 29, 1981. On that day, on behalf of the State, it was submitted that the costs has not been paid and time was prayed for failing the written statement. On November 21, 1981, again an application was submitted that time be granted for the submission of the written statement. It took more than about three years to prepare the written statement. However, on November 29,1981, the written statement was submitted. The written statement was submitted on November 29, 1981 because the Court had passed the order that the defendant would forfeit the right in the matter of submission of the written statement. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has invited my attention to Kali Pado v. Surendra Nath : AIR1975Pat24 , wherein, it was observed as under:

(3.) THE revision petition is accepted on the condition that the State Govt. shall pay Rs. 500/ - as costs including Rs. 50/ - already awarded by the lower court within a period of six weeks. In case the State Govt. fails to pay the amount of Rs. 500/ - to the non -petitioner within six weeks from today, then the State will forfeit its right to submit the written statement. The order dated November 30, 1931 of the Additional Civil Judge, Bharatpur is set aside.