Irothu Mohan Rai vs Akoju Vanajakshi

In this Civil Revision Petition, Notice before Admission was ordered on 12-10-1998 and the respondent was served on 6-11-1998. But, she did not choose to appear in this Court either in person or through a Counsel. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of on merits.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge passed in IA No.330 of 1998 in OS No.46 of 1997 dated 24-7-1998, whereunder the application filed by the defendant u/s 148 CPC seeking enlargement of time granted for filing the written statement and payment of costs was dismissed, the defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

I have gone through the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, and I have no hesitation to observe that the Junior Civil Judge failed to appreciate the facts of the case, and by placing reliance on a judgment in P.V. Chalapathi v. T. Subba Reddy and another 1989 (2) ALT 629, dismissed the Interlocutory Application.

From the order, it is seen that in a suit for injunction filed by the respondent herein, the Court seemed to have adjourned the matter on 11-6-1998 to 29-6-1998 for filing written statement with costs of Rs.150/-, as the petitioner herein might not have filed the written statement within a reasonable time. The Court further observed that if the order is not complied with, the petition stands dismissed. To that extent, the Court is right in passing the order. But, the Court failed to take the subsequent facts into consideration. It is not in dispute that on 26-6-1998, the petitioner was brutally beaten by unknown persons and he was admitted in the King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam on the next day i.e., on 27-6-1998. The incident was also reported in the local editions of the newspapers. In the meantime, while he was in hospital, he might have instructed his Counsel to seek extension of time to file written statement and also to pay the costs awarded. On the basis of the instruction of the petitioner, his Counsel seemed to have filed the petition u/s 148 CPC seeking enlargement of time granted for filing written statement and payment of costs, and the application seemed to have come up for hearing on 24-7-1998. In the meantime, the petitioner seemed to have been discharged on 18-7-1998, The learned Judge takes notice of the discharge of the petitioner from the Hospital and draws an adverse inference for not filing the written statement, without reference to his physical and mental condition in the light of the unforeseen attack on him which made him to be hospitalised for nearly three weeks. Immediately, the Court relies upon the judgment referred to above and dismissed the application by holding that the order passed by him in IA No.267 of 1998 dated 11-6-1998 is self-operative and the Court has no power to extend the time as the order itself has worked out. I have seen the Judgment of this Court. The case arose under Specific Relief Act and the Court passed a conditional order granting one month''s time to deposit the balance sale consideration failing which the suit stands dismissed. When an application is filed seeking extension of time, the Court dismissed the application as the Court has become functus officio as the suit itself was disposed of Further in that case the substantive rights of the parties were finally adjudicated and in this case extention of time is in the realm of procedural law. The Court foiled to note this distinction and blindly dismissed the application. I am of the confirmed view that the said judgment cannot be pressed into service in a case of this nature.

Procedural Laws are meant to see that Justice is done to the parties, but not to subvert the same on technicalities. Even though the application is filed u/s 148 CPC, u/s 151 CPC, the Court is having ample powers to extend the time, in exercise of the Inherent Jurisdiction vested in it, to prevent miscarriage of Justice. The respondent did not dispute about the attack on the petitioner by unknown persons and his hospitalisation. Further, the application seeking extension of time was filed actually when he was convalescing in the Hospital at 200 Kms away from the place. Neither the Court nor the respondent can expect him to come to the Court or to the Counsel to give instructions for filing written statement when he is in a precarious condition. Hence, I am of the view that the Officer failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him to prevent miscarriage of Justice.

Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside, and the time granted in IA No.267 of 1998, dated 11-6-1998 to file written statement with costs, is extended by four weeks from today. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.