Shri Gobind Trading Company and Another vs The Nissing Co-operative Marketing cum-Processing Society Ltd. and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—This is revision petition by defendants No. 1 and 2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 09.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, thereby declining further opportunity to the defendants for filing written statement.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the defendants had put in appearance through counsel in the trial court on 07.08.2009, but inspite of lapse of more than four months, written statement had not been filed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that the written statement is now ready and is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2 and the petitioners may be granted only one more opportunity to file written statement on payment of cost.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. According to Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, written statement is required to be filed within 30 days of the date of service of summons or in any case, not later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. In the instant case, the trial court allowed more than four months'' time to the petitioners to file the written statement. Thus, the order of the trial court cannot be said to be bad in law. However, rules of procedure are hand-maids of justice. The written statement has now been prepared by the petitioners and they are ready to file the same in the trial court. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are permitted to file the written statement on payment of heavy cost. The petitioners have to be burdened with heavy cost because even the instant revision petition has been filed more than two months after the passing of the impugned order by the trial court and suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is for recovery of heavy amount of Rs. 15,57,467/-along with interest thereon since 12.04.2006 and the interest amount would also be substantial even for pre-suit period.

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 of its expenses in engaging counsel for the instant revision petition, if the notice is ordered to be issued to respondent No. 1.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to file written statement in the trial court on or before 25.02.2010 the next date fixed in the trial court, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-as cost precedent to plaintiff-respondent No. 1.