AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S. No. 107 of 1997 connected with O.S. No. 5382 of 1997 is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 3-10-2009 passed on I.A. No. 27 in the above said suit at Annexure-A.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that with an intention to protract the proceedings. Defendant 2 filed I.A. No. XXVII u/s 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking permission to file written statement and the Trial Court also erred in allowing the application though I.A. No. XI dated 24-7-2008 seeking permission to file additional written statement was rejected.
It is pertinent to mention that the defendant 2/respondent 2 filed I.A. No. XXV u/s 151 of the CPC for reopening the case and to lead his evidence and I.A. No. XXVI u/s 151 of the CPC to recall the order dated 10-6-2008 closing the evidence on the side of the defendant and I.A. No. XXVII to recall the order dated 24-7-2007 and permit the defendant 2 to file written statement. By common order, the Trial Court has allowed all the applications viz., I.A. Nos. XXV, XXVI and XXVII and imposed costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner has not challenged the order passed on I.A. Nos. XXV and XXVI. In other words the petitioner has challenged only the order passed on I.A. No. XXVII in O.S. No. 107 of 1997 permitting the defendant 2 to file written statement. The two suits (namely, suit and countersuit) have been clubbed. It appears that the defendant 2 was under the impression that he had filed written statement. But he noticed that written statement was not filed and therefore, sought for permission to file written statement and the same was allowed. The suit was filed in the year 1997. Hence, the proviso to the amended provision Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC, is not applicable. The Trial Court has rightly allowed the application permitting the respondent herein to file written statement. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view that the suit is of the year 1997, a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a limited period.
Keeping in view that the suit is of the year 1997, it would meet the ends of justice to stipulate some time-limit to dispose of the suit.
In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S. No. 107 of 1997 connected with O.S. No. 5382 of 1997 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.