Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.1118/1998 pending before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, challenged the order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the trial court in Marji No.494/2002, whereby their application seeking permission to file written statement was rejected. The suit was filed in 1998 and summons were served on the defendants. However, the defendants failed to file written statement within the prescribed period. After about 4 years, they filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to file written statement. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the inordinate delay. The High Court, in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, examined the legality and correctness of the impugned order. The court noted that the defendants had ample opportunity to file written statement but did not do so. The reasons advanced for the delay were not satisfactory. The court held that the trial court's order was neither illegal nor perverse and did not warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Condonation of Delay - Order 8 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 9, Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioners, original defendants in a suit, sought to file written statement after a delay of about 4 years from service of summons. The trial court rejected the application holding that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The High Court upheld the order, observing that the defendants had ample opportunity to file written statement but failed to do so, and the reasons given were not satisfactory. Held that the trial court's order was neither illegal nor perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application (Marji No.494/2002) filed by the petitioners (original defendants) seeking permission to file written statement after a delay of about 4 years from the date of service of summons.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 10.12.2002 rejecting the application to file written statement. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 9 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- condonation of delay
- sufficient cause
- right to file written statement
- procedural law
