AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dongaonkar S.R., J.—Heard Shri Darda, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Ghare, Advocate for respondent.
Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent parties.
Petitioner is challenging the order of Judge, Small Causes Court, below exhibit 14 in M.J.C. 4/08 the proceedings for fixation of fair rent instituted by the petitioner.
The petitioner was served with the suit summonses on 28.4.2008. He was expected to file written statement on or before 27.5.2008. Petitioner then applied for leave to file Written Statement on 19.7.2008. However, that application was rejected and the defendant was not allowed to file written statement on record. This order is challenged in this petition.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
It does appear that the date on which the petitioner had applied for leave to file Written Statement was within a period of 90 days. No doubt the petitioner has failed to make out a specific case or exceptional circumstance for allowing him to file written statement, but the fact remains that the matter was being contested from 19.7.2008 and the period of 90 days did not expire on that date.
As held by the Apex Court in Zolba Vs. Keshao and Others, , provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. are directory in nature. Though the delay in filing the written statement can be condoned in exceptional circumstances and the petitioner should have pointed out the situation wherein he could not file written statement within time. Though the present circumstances can not be said to be an exceptional circumstance strictly, but then as matter needs to be decided on merits and the matter was pending till then, there was no difficulty for the learned trial Court to allow the application to file written statement on record so that the matter could have been decided on merits the respondent could have been compensated with necessary costs.
Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that this Court had ordered stay of the further proceedings in M.J.C., subject to petitioner''s depositing Rs. 20000/- with the Registry of this Court by 4.12.2008, as that order has not been complied the petition should be dismissed.
The order to deposit Rs. 20000/- was a condition precedent for the stay of the proceedings, therefore, non compliance of that order can not leas to the dismissal of the present petition. In my opinion, it will have to be decided on merits.
Fact remains that this petition is for allowing petitioner to file written statement on record, so that the matter should be decided on merits and the relevant application was filed by petitioner within a period of 90 days from the service of the suit summonses.
In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow this petition and allow the petitioner to file written statement on record, however, same shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) in the trial Court within the period of 15 days from today.
If the cost is deposited, within period of 15 days from today, written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner be taken on record and the matter may be dealt with in accordance with law.
Rule made absolute in above terms.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost.