AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Petitioner is a Multinational Courier and Logistic Company, which has been arrayed as defendant in a suit for declaration filed by plaintiff-respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Distt. Ajmer. Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2014 by which its application u/s. 151 C.P.C. for accepting the written statement filed by it on record has been dismissed.
This Court while issuing notices of the writ petition on 27.5.2014 stayed the operation of the impugned order.
Despite service, no one has appeared for the respondent-plaintiff when the matter was listed on 19.11.2014 and 4.12.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner acts only as a courier agency. The goods that were imported by the respondents originated from Tiavan and were to be handed over to the plaintiff-respondent at Ajmer, but were detained by custom authorities in November, 2010. The petitioner by its final reminder dated 18.12.2010 and abandonment letter dated 21.12.2010 brought to the notice of the respondent to get the goods cleared within 30 days, otherwise the same would be treated as abandoned/sold as per Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the suit was barred by Section 48 of the Act, the defendant-petitioner instead of directly filing the written statement filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint as barred by law. The trial court dismissed the application by order dated 1.5.2013 and fixed the matter on 8.5.2013 as the date for filing the written statement and also simultaneously directed that in case the written statement is not filed by that date, the right of the defendant-petitioner to file written statement stands forfeited. Learned counsel argued that petitioner could not file the written statement upto 8.5.2013 because it came to know about the time limit on 8.5.2013 itself. Till the certified copy of the order was delivered to them on 8.5.2003, the suit was at very initial stage and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in straightaway directing closure of the defendant''s right to file written statement and adjourned the matter to record the evidence of the plaintiff on 7.8.2013. The petitioner sent the duly drafted written statement along with application under Section 151 C.P.C., which was filed before the Court. The trial court has rejected such application by impugned order dated 25.4.2014 by taking a very hyper technical approach. Learned counsel submitted that the first date on which the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the trial court was 11.1.2013 after service and thereafter the matter was at a very preliminary stage and not many opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file written statement. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mr. Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Mr. Kumar and Others, .
Considering the facts of the case in totality, it is found that the first date of appearance after service of defendant was 11.1.2013, on which date the matter was adjourned to 5.2.2013 for granting opportunity to the defendant to file written statement, on which date again opportunity was granted to the learned counsel for the defendant to file written statement and matter was fixed on 22.4.2013. In the meantime, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the defendant on 3.4.2013, copy whereof was ordered to be supplied to counsel for the plaintiff on 22.4.2013 and the matter was fixed for arguments on that application on 27.4.2013. The arguments were heard and order was reserved, which was pronounced on 1.5.2013 and the application was rejected and opportunity upto 8.5.2013 was granted to the defendant to file statement with the stipulation that if it fails to do so, its right to file written statement shall stand forfeited. The defendant''s plea that it became aware of the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the date of pronouncement, but the stipulation that if written statement was not filed on 8.5.2013, came to its knowledge only on receiving the certified copy, cannot be disbelieved because perusal of certified copy shows that this copy was supplied on 8.5.2013. It was only thereafter that the defendant filed application under Order 151 CPC. The Supreme Court in the said case of Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab, supra has observed that substituted Order 8 Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases, causing inconvenience to the plaintiff and the petitioners approaching the court for quick relief. The Court observed that object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. It is also well settled that rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.
In Rehanul Haq vs. Shamim Ahmed, 2009 (74) ALR page 840ENDLAWFINDER , the Supreme Court has observed that 90 days from the date of appearance of the defendant to file written statement fixed as outer limit, is not mandatory but directory. This very view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the aforecited case of Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab, supra. The trial court cannot be therefore held to have exercised its discretion judiciously. When the petitioner had filed the written statement along with its application under Section 151 C.P.C., there was no justification for the trial court not to accept the statement on record.
In view of above, the written statement so filed, deserves to be taken on record. The impugned order dated 25.4.2014 to the extent it denies the right of the petitioner to file written statement is quashed and the trial court is directed to accept the written statement on record.
With that direction, the writ petition is allowed.