Javed Qamar Siddiqui vs Ramesh Chand Setthi and Others

Bharati Sapru, J.—Both sides are Present.

This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Najibabad and the order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bijnor and the order dated 26.5.2010 passed by the A.D.J. (F.T.C.) Court No. 2 Bijnor (Annexure 10 to the writ petition).

By the impugned orders, written statement filed by the Respondent has been accepted despite the fact it had been filed after much delay.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has brought on record a copy of the objections made by the Petitioner which are appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The impugned order dated 6.5.2008 does not reflect in any manner that the court below has considered the objections made by the Petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1 Code of Code of Civil Procedure

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Satvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the Apex Court has held that the court below while accepting the written statement with delay must record sufficient reasons. In this case the Petitioner has legitimately contended that the impugned order does not take into account the objections made by the Petitioner.

In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the trial court for decision afresh in the light of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yusuf (supra). The matter on remand may be decided on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order being placed by the Petitioner within three weeks from today. It is made clear that no frivolous adjournment will be granted by the court below to either side. The impugned orders are set aside. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.