Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, defendants in Civil Suit No.98 of 2007 pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhandara, were served summons on 29 August 2007. They filed an application (Exh.25) on 19 December 2007 seeking permission to file a written statement, but the application disclosed no reasons for the delay. The plaintiff objected, and the application was rejected on 15 February 2008. Meanwhile, on 8 January 2008, the petitioners had filed another application (Exh.26) with the same prayer. The trial judge rejected Exh.26 on the ground that Exh.25 had already been rejected on the same day, which was factually incorrect as Exh.25 was rejected only on 15 February 2008. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a third application (Exh.44) renewing the prayer, which was rejected on 6 April 2009. The petitioners challenged these orders in the High Court. The High Court observed that the trial court's rejection of Exh.26 was based on an erroneous belief, and since that foundation was unsound, the order on Exh.25 also lost support. Noting that the delay in filing the written statement was less than a month, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and permitted the petitioners to file the written statement subject to depositing Rs. 5,000 as costs to be paid to the plaintiff, irrespective of the suit's outcome. If costs were not deposited, the application would stand rejected.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Delay Condonation - Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - The trial court rejected the defendants' application for filing written statement on the erroneous belief that a previous application had been rejected on the same day, when in fact it had not. The High Court set aside the orders, noting the delay was less than a month, and allowed the written statement to be filed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs to the plaintiff. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application for filing written statement after a short delay, and whether the impugned orders were based on an erroneous factual premise.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and permitted the petitioners to file written statement subject to depositing Rs. 5,000 as costs to be paid to the plaintiff within seven days. If costs not deposited, application stands rejected. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure
- Written Statement
- Delay Condonation
- Costs
