AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rohini, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-9-2004 in I.A. No. 287 of 2004 in O.S. No. 37 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.
The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for declaration of title by virtue of adverse possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents herein are the defendants 1 to 4 respectively in the suit.
For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred as the plaintiff and the defendants as they were arrayed in the plaint.
It is not in dispute that the defendants 2 and 3 (the respondents 2 and 3 herein) were set ex parte, and the summons could not be served on the defendant No. 4 for want of correct address. So far as the 1st defendant (respondent No. 1 herein) is concerned, though summons were served and the Counsel entered appearance, since the written statement was not filed, by order dated 14-8-2003 the right to file written statement was forfeited.
While the matter stood posted to 20-8-2004 for furnishing the correct address of the fourth defendant, on 10-8-2004 the first defendant filed I.A.No. 287 of 2004 under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. read with Sections 148 and 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission to file written statement by setting aside the order dated 14-8-2003.
The Assistant General Manager of the first defendant has sworn to the affidavit in support of the said application stating that she assumed charge on 24-5-2004 and that she came to know that the right to file written statement was forfeited on 14-8-2003. Then, she took up the matter and personally contacted their Counsel and instructed to file written statement, it is stated that as her predecessor and herself were very busy in the administrative matters, the written statement could not be filed within the stipulated time. It was further stated that the 3rd defendant owes a sum of Rs. 9,00,79,943-97 ps and the same has to be realised by selling away the suit schedule properties which were mortgaged by the third defendant in favour of the first defendant-Bank and that the plaintiff was in no way concerned with the suit schedule property. In the circumstances, unless permission is granted to the first defendant to file written statement they stand to suffer irreparable loss and the amounts due from the third defendant cannot be recovered.
The plaintiff filed a counter opposing the said application and stating that the application filed one year after the order forfeiting the right of the first defendant to file written statement is not bona fide and absolutely no satisfactory explanation was offered to set aside the said order and to permit the first defendant to file written statement. It was also stated that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application are false, fictitious and created only for the purpose of filing the application.
The Court below, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 16-9-2004 allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs. 200/- on or before 30-9-2004 failing which petition shall stand dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed by the plaintiff.
I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that since the first defendant failed to file written statement within 90 days as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., the Court below has rightly forfeited its right to file written statement. The learned Counsel contends that whereas the said order forfeiting the right to file written statement was passed on 14-8-2003, the present application seeking permission to file written statement by setting aside the order of forfeiture was filed only on 19-9-2004 i.e., after more than an year which itself shows that the application is not bona fide. The learned Counsel submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Court below ought to have held that the officials of the first defendant-Bank were guilty of gross negligence and laches and therefore ought not to have passed any order in their favour.
The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if a defendant fails to present the written statement within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to pronounce the judgment. According to the learned Counsel, Rule 1 of Order VIII of C.P.C. is mandatory and it should be interpreted in strict terms.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent-Bank submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In Nachipeddi Ramaswamy Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, this Court having considered the scope and object of Order VIII of Rule 1 of C.P.C. as amended by Act 22 of 2002 as well as Order VIII Rule 10 of C.P.C. held as under :
"... Rules 1, 1A and 10 of Order VIII together would show that though a defendant is required to file written statement within 30 days after receipt of summons and though the Court can extend the time till 90 days, the Court is not divested of power to fix further time for filing the written statement. It is well settled that this cardinal principle of interpretation of law with an enactment has to be read as a whole and then the entire Section has to be read and thereafter the Act has to be interpreted Section by Section. One Rule or one Section in the enactment could be a guiding factor for arriving at the intendment of the Legislature. The very fact that Rule 10 is reintroduced by Act 22 of 2002 by the Parliament would show that the Parliament never intended the Civil Court to pronounce judgment immediately after the failure on the part of the defendant to file written statement within 90 days.
Further, Section 148 C.P.C. empower the Court to enlarge the time. In addition to this, we must not forget that the Civil Court being a Court of equity, justice and good conscience is also vested with inherent powers u/s 151 CPC to avoid miscarriage of justice. It is always open to the Civil Court to exercise inherent powers provided such exercise is not totally derogatory to the main provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder."
In Centenary Baptish Church Vs. Shyamsunder and Another, , it was held that the Court can extend the time to file the written statement even after expiry of 90 days provided that the Court finds sufficient cause. The observations made by this Court in the said case may be extracted as under :
"In appropriate cases the Court can extend time where the ends of justice require such extension. But at the same time it is to be remembered that when the defendant fails to file the written statement as directed by the Court, a vested right accrues to the plaintiff and any order to be passed subsequently for extension of time shall be passed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, conduct of the defendant, and the prejudice that might be caused to the plaintiff in whose favour already a vested right accrued. Therefore any extension of time for filing the written statement shall be on reasonable grounds and in exceptional circumstances to render substantial justice to the parties."
In a recent decision - G. Parimala Vs. Bimala Bhatia and Others, (DB), a Division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to consider the very same question and it has been held as under :
"... Once the Court is empowered to grant time, beyond 30 days, for filing written statement, the necessary substratum for exercise of power u/s 148 comes into existence. The reason is that the time allowed for filing written statement beyond 30 days is or becomes, the one "fixed or granted by the Court" and not the one stipulated by C.P.C. The maximum limit of 90 days, indicated in the proviso, at the most constitutes a guiding factor for the Courts, in exercise of their jurisdiction, but not a basis to deny them the power, specifically conferred u/s 148. Such a construction would accord with the complete scheme of Order VIII, and Section 148...."
However, in the above case, the Division Bench has disagreed with the view expressed in Nachipeddi Ramaswamy''s case (supra) that the inherent power u/s 151 of C.P.C. can also be exercised for extending the time for filing the written statement and observed that Section 151 of CPC does not get attracted to the situations which are governed by specific provisions.
In the light of the ratio laid down in the above cases, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
In the case on hand, it is true that the Counsel for the 1st defendant filed his vakalat on 7-1-2003 and at the request of the first defendant on 11-3-2003 time for filing its written statement was extended till 9-4-2003. Thereafter, at the instance of the 1st defendant the matter was adjourned from time to time by extending the time for filing the written statement and ultimately the matter was posted to 14-8-2003. However, even on 14-8-2003 the written statement was not filed and therefore the Court below passed an order forfeiting the right of the 1st defendant to file the written statement. Since the 1st defendant could not file the written statement within 90 days as stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., no doubt the order dated 14-8-2003 cannot be held to be erroneous or without jurisdiction. However, the question is whether it is impermissible to set aside such an order and to grant further extension of time for filing written statement, in case the 1st defendant makes out sufficient cause for its failure to file the written statement within the stipulated period.
As noted above, the law is well settled that the inherent power u/s 151 of C.P.C. cannot be exercised for extending the time for filing the written statement in view of Section 148 of C.P.C. which specifically provides for enlargement of time. If the defendant fails to file the written statement within the time pennitted or fixed by the Court, it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to pronounce the judgment, but in exercise of power under Order 8 Rules 1, 1A and 10 of C.P.C. read with Section 148 of C.P.C. it is always open to the Court in appropriate cases to extend time to file the written statement. However, it is necessary for the Court to assign the reasons while granting such extension. It is true that such extension cannot be granted as a matter of course, but that can be done only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant offers acceptable explanation for its failure to file the written statement within the stipulated period.
In the case on hand, having considered the material on record, the Court below by a well-reasoned order having expressed its satisfaction as to the explanation offered by the 1st defendant allowed the application in question. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be said to be vitiated on account of any extraneous considerations nor can it be termed as perverse. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of LA. No. 287 of 2004, it cannot be held that the explanation offered by the 1st defendant was not credible. Since the first defendant is a Bank, keeping in view the public interest involved the Court cannot totally ignore the realities in the administrative delays and therefore a liberal approach is necessary in considering the explanation offered. Hence, the Court below has rightly allowed the petition on payment of costs.
For the aforesaid reasons, 1 do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order which is in accordance with the settled principles of law. The said order which is not vitiated on account of any patent error of fact or law, does not warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.