Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nirmal Ujjwal Multi State Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., was the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 69 of 2013 filed by the respondent, Sureshchandra Shrinarayanji Sharma, for eviction and possession of suit premises. The suit was filed on 03.09.2013, and summons was served on the petitioner on 20.09.2013. The matter was adjourned from time to time to file written statement on 26.09.2013, 13.11.2013, and 16.12.2013. Instead of filing a written statement, the petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the suit at Exh.9 on 16.12.2013. Thereafter, the matter was further adjourned on 07.01.2014 and 07.02.2014, on which date the plaintiff filed a reply to the application at Exh.9 and also filed an application at Exh.10 for pronouncement of judgment under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The matter was then adjourned on several dates, and on 15.09.2014, the court passed an order to proceed without written statement. The petitioner then filed an application for permission to file written statement on 24.09.2014, which was rejected by the trial court by order dated 10.11.2014. The High Court, in the writ petition, considered the factual background and held that the petitioner/defendant can be permitted to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000 to the respondent. The court quashed the trial court's order and directed the petitioner to file written statement on or before 25th February 2015 and deposit the costs on the same day. The trial court was directed to permit the respondent to withdraw the amount and to dispose of the suit within six months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Permission to file after delay - Order 8 Rule 10 CPC - The trial court rejected the defendant's application for permission to file written statement after the defendant had failed to file it within the prescribed time and had instead filed an application for dismissal of the suit. The High Court held that the defendant can be permitted to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff, and quashed the trial court's order. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for permission to file written statement after the defendant had failed to file it within the prescribed time and had instead filed an application for dismissal of the suit.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Order dated 10.11.2014 passed below Exh.41 in Regular Civil Suit No. 69 of 2013 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner to file written statement on or before 25th February 2015 and deposit costs of Rs. 20,000 on the same day. Trial Court to permit respondent to withdraw the amount and dispose of the suit within six months.
Law Points
- Permission to file written statement after expiry of limitation
- Order 8 Rule 10 CPC
- Costs as condition for condonation of delay
- Eviction suit
- Discretion of court
