AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have laid a challenge to order dated 23.1.2018, whereby their application dated 22.4.2011 filed under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been rejected.
Briefly narrated the facts are that the petitioners had field a suit for cancellation of sale deed and injunction against the defendants (respondents no.1 and 2 herein). As the defendants did not file the written statement for considerable time, the petitioners moved an application dated 6.1.2011 under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the defendants' right to submit written statement be closed.
Before this application could be decided, the defendant No.2 filed the written statement on 23.9.2011.
At this juncture, the petitioners filed another application on 22.11.2011 and prayed that the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 be taken off the record. The said application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 23.1.2018, impugned in the present writ petition.
Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defendant No.2 has failed to file his written statement for a considerable period of 8 years and, therefore, his written statement ought not to have been taken on record and petitioners' application ought to have been allowed.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and considering the fact that the order impugned in the present writ petition has been passed on 23.1.2018, no interference is warranted by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction, particularly when, the written statement has already been taken on record and proceedings in the trial Court has thereafter proceeded substantially.
That apart, this Court is of the firm view that interest of justice demands that a litigating party should be given reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Once such an opportunity has been afforded by the Court below, this Court would not normally exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to upturn such an order.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.