Case Note & Summary
By way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, original defendant no.1 in Special Civil Suit No.108/2021 pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule, challenged three orders passed by the trial court. The respondents nos.1 to 4 were original plaintiffs seeking possession of a suit property; respondents nos.5 to 7 were original defendant nos.2 to 4. The dispute arose from a civil suit for possession of an immovable property being a constructed building admeasuring 41 square meters situated at Lane No.4, Khol Galli, CTS No.2878/A at Dhule. The suit summons was served on the petitioner on 20.09.2021. He appeared on 10.02.2022 through advocate, and the matter was posted for written statement on 11.03.2022. However, the petitioner failed to file written statement, leading to a no written statement order on 19.04.2022. Issues were framed. The plaintiffs obtained permission on 06.01.2023 to lead secondary evidence of sale deeds, and the petitioner's earlier writ petition challenging that order was withdrawn. From 22.09.2023 to 24.07.2024, the plaintiffs led evidence. The petitioner did not cross-examine the witnesses, resulting in no-cross orders on 10.04.2024 and 24.06.2024. On the latter date, plaintiffs closed their evidence. The petitioner's application for time to file his evidence affidavit was rejected on 23.08.2024, and his evidence was closed. The matter was posted for final arguments; plaintiffs concluded arguments on 17.12.2024, and the matter was posted for defendant's arguments. At that stage, the petitioner moved application Exhibit-59 to set aside the no-cross order dated 10.04.2024, which was rejected on 18.12.2024. On 19.12.2024, he moved application Exhibit-61 to set aside the no written statement order dated 19.04.2022 and accept his written statement with counterclaim, which was rejected on 18.02.2025. The petition challenged these orders. The core legal issue was whether the High Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the trial court's orders and reopen the suit at the stage of written statement and cross-examination. The petitioner argued that the dispute concerned immovable property requiring a decision on merits, that lapses were not intentional because the advocate's file was misplaced, and that the court could compensate the plaintiffs with costs. The respondents argued that the petitioner was aware of all proceedings, sought adjournments, but deliberately avoided filing written statement and cross-examination, and no justifiable reason was shown to set the clock back after the matter reached judgment. The court reasoned that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity at every stage and that from March 2023 to August 2024 all procedural steps took place with his knowledge and in presence of his advocate. It noted that the petitioner never intended to defend the suit and was merely protracting the proceedings. The trial court rightly placed reliance on Kailash v. Nanku, which held that extension of time for written statement is an exception and cannot be granted in cases of laxity or gross negligence. The High Court found no reason to interfere in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the rule was discharged. The request for continuation of interim relief was also rejected.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Belated filing after no written statement order - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court rightly refused to set aside the no written statement order dated 19.04.2022 and accept the written statement with counterclaim filed at the stage of judgment because the defendant failed to show sufficient cause and had been lax and grossly negligent. The Supreme Court's observations in Kailash v. Nanku were applied, holding that extension of time for filing written statement is an exception and cannot be granted as a matter of course when the court is satisfied that there is laxity or gross negligence. Held that no interference was warranted in order dated 18.02.2025 rejecting application Exhibit-61 (Paras 7-12). B) Civil Procedure - Cross-Examination - Setting aside no-cross orders - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court rightly rejected application Exhibit-59 to set aside no-cross orders dated 10.04.2024 and 24.06.2024 and permit cross-examination because the defendant gave no reasons for failing to cross-examine witnesses when they were present in court. The court noted that the application was moved only after the matter was posted for judgment and contained no explanation for the delay. Held that the order dated 18.12.2024 needed no interference (Para 13). C) Constitution - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - The High Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside trial court interlocutory orders where the petitioner's conduct showed deliberate protraction of proceedings and disregard of procedural rigors. The trial court's orders were not perverse or jurisdictionally flawed, and the defendant had no right to reopen concluded stages after the matter reached judgment. Held that the writ petition was dismissed and rule discharged (Paras 11-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside trial court orders closing evidence, rejecting application to set aside no-cross order, and rejecting application to set aside no written statement order and accept written statement with counterclaim at the stage of judgment
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief continuation refused. The High Court held that trial court correctly rejected applications; no interference in orders dated 23.08.2024, 18.12.2024, and 18.02.2025; request for continuation of interim relief rejected.
Law Points
- Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited
- procedural orders can be interfered only if perverse or jurisdictionally flawed
- written statement cannot be permitted at stage of judgment absent sufficient cause
- extension of time for written statement is exception and not available in cases of laxity or gross negligence
- no-cross orders cannot be set aside without explanation for failure to cross-examine when witnesses were present
- delay and protraction of proceedings disentitle party to discretionary relief
