Irshad Ahmad and Others vs Ramesh Chand Setthi and Others

Bharati Sapru, J.—Both sides are present.

This writ petition has been filed by thePetitioner being aggrieved by the orderdated 06.05.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Najibabad and the order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Addl. DistrictJudge, Bijnor and the order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the A.D.J. (F.T.C.) Court No. 2 Bijnor (Annexure 10 to the writ petition).

By the impugned orders, written statementfiled by the Respondent has been accepteddespite the fact it had been filed aftermuch delay.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner hasbrought on record a copy of the objectionsmade by the Petitioner which are appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Theimpugned order dated 06.05.2008 does notreflect in any manner that the court belowhas considered the objections made by thePetitioner under Order 8 Rule 1 Code of Code of Civil Procedure

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner hasrelied on a decision of the Hon''ble ApexCourt in the case of Satvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the Apex Court has held thatthe court below while accepting the writtenstatement with delay must record sufficientreasons. In this case the Petitioner haslegitimately contended that the impugnedorder does not take into account theobjections made by the Petitioner.

In view of the above, the matter is remandedto the trial court for decision afresh inthe light of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yusuf (supra). The matter on remand may be decided onmerits and in accordance with lawexpeditiously preferably within a period ofthree months from the date of production ofa certified copy of this order being placedby the Petitioner within three weeks fromtoday. It is made clear that no frivolousadjournment will be granted by the courtbelow to either side. The impugned ordersare set aside. The writ petition is disposedof as above. No costs.