KARPURI DEVI Vs. RABINDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, who were the plaintiffs in the suit. Since, the other respondents are only co -defendants with the petitioners, I do not think it necessary to issue notices to them in this writ petition. I am, therefore, disposing of this matter finally after hearing counsel for the petitioners and counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) IN a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, the petitioners, entered appearance on 31.7.2003. They did not file a written statement within thirty days thereof and not even within the ninety days fixed. Therefore, by the order dated 19.11.2003 the Court debarred them from filing a written statement and decided to proceed with the suit. Thereafter, on 15.12.2003 the defendants purported to file a written statement along with a petition for accepting the same. But it is seen that they did not even seek a modification or review of the order dated 19.11.2003 earlier passed by the trial Court. On the basis of the earlier order and in the light of the decision of this Court in Pitambar Singh and Ors. V/s. Makar Singh and Ors., 2003 (4) JLJR 427 : 2004 (1) JCR 601 (Jhr), and taking note of the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the amendment brought to it and the intention behind the amendment, the trial Court found that the defendants cannot be permitted to file the written statement and thereby their prayer was rejected. This proceeding challenges that order.

(3.) THIS Court is troubled by another aspect. The suit is for specific performance. Obviously, without a written statement, the defendants would not be in a position to defend the suit properly. It is not as if the defendants have attempted to file a written statement after the issues were settled or after the trial has commenced. No doubt, they were not very deligent in the context of the relevant provisions of the Code and had taken their own time to file the written statement, but had filed the same before the suit reached the evidence stage. In the light of the intention expressed by Parliament, the Court even if it is inclined to exercise its discretion and grant some additional time to a defendant to file a written statement, it could not do so, since the object sought to be achieved by the amendment is to avoid delay in disposal of suits filed in Court. Though, up to myself I would be inclined to show some leniency and allow the defendants to file a written statement by putting them on terms, I find that it will not be proper in the light of the relevant provisions of the Code and the decision of this Court which has been followed by the trial Court and on the facts of this case, in the light of the earlier order passed by the trial Court on 19.11.2003 barring the defendants from filing a written statement, which they have not sought to get reviewed or recalled. I also find that the Karnataka High Court on a consideration of the relevant aspects has held that at best the Court can extend the time for filing a written statement only by a period of thirty days in the light of the amendment brought about in Section 148 of the Code. In the present case, the written statement sought was to be filed even beyond 30 days of the expiry of the period fixed. In this situation, though with some hesitation, I decline to interfere with the order of the Court below. I dismiss this proceeding.