AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition is being allowed without issuing notice or hearing landlords respondents. If they feel aggrieved by this order, they are at liberty to file application for recall of this order.
This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 3.4.2008 passed by J.S.C.C./IX A.D.J., Moradabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2006, Sri Karamatullah v. Imtiyaz Husain, rejecting, an application through which it was prayed that written statement, which was filed after a long delay might be taken on record. Earlier also an application of the tenant seeking time to file written statement had been rejected on 4.12.2007. Said order has also been challenged through this writ petition.
Petitioner was served with the summon of the suit on 4.4.2007. Written statement was filed along with an application on 5.2.2008.
Even though, tenant was unduly delaying the proceedings of the suit, however in the interest of justice, I consider it appropriate to permit the tenant to contest the proceedings on payment of very heavy cost. Ground taken for delayed filing of written statement was nonavailability of his Counsel.
Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and written statement is taken on record on payment of Rs. 20,000/ as costs. This costs shall positively be deposited within two months before J.S.C.C. for immediate payment to the landlord respondent. In case this amount is not deposited within two months, then this order shall stand automatically vacated and writ petition shall stand dismissed.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed as above.