ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) PLAINTIFF -respondent filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent in respect of rented premises against the defendant -petitioner wherein summon of the suit was served upon the defendant on 30.04.2003 and he put his appearance on 24.05.2003, but written -statement was not filed by him in spite of number of opportunities granted to him. The matter was fixed before the trial court on 05.06.2004 and he filed another application to grant him an opportunity to file the written -statement, which was dismissed by the trial court on 05.06.2004. Thereafter the defendant -petitioner filed his written -statement along -with the application on 05.07.2004 to take the same on the record. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 13.09.2004. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the defendant -petitioner with a prayer to set -aside the impugned orders dated 05.06.2004 and 13.09.2004 passed by the trial court and to take his written -statement on the record.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the plaintiff -respondent contended that the suit was filed on 04.01.2003 and the defendant was served with a summon of plaint way back on 30.04.2003. He put his appearance on 24.05.2003 and the matter was fixed for filing the written -statement, and since then he avoided filing of the written -statement. He also contended that as per the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was a duty of the defendant to file the written -statement within a period of 90 days, but even after grant of time he did not file the written statement and only for the purpose of delaying the matter he moved the application under Order 11 Rule 18 of the CPC, which was dismissed on 04.06.2004, but still the trial court granted one more opportunity to file the written -statement by the next date, but the same was not filed and another application was moved for grant of time, which was rightly dismissed by the trial court. He further contended that the order dated 13.09.2004 is self -speaking and it will show that the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.