Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 16.11.2019
SU 1176/19
NM 2106/19
NM 4017/19
CORAM: H. H. J. SHRI.M.T.ASIM (CR. NO. 02)
Adv. Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Pawar for defendant no.1 present.
Defendant no.1 present.
Reply filed by the plaintiff to the NM 4017/19.
Heard counsel for parties.
KB
L.O.
Order on NM No.4017/19 alongwith application for delay condonation.
Perused notice of motion, affidavit in support of it, application for delay condonation and
reply of the plaintiff.
Heard respective counsel for parties.
Notice of motion is taken out by defendant no.1 alongwith application for condonation of
delay in relation to delay caused in filing of written statement and to take the same on
record. It is the contention of defendant no.1 that writ of summons was served upon him on
08.06.2019 and as he was unaware about the Court proceeding, so he could not appoint
Advocate within time, because of which delay has been caused in filing of written
statement. It is further contended that he wants to contest matter on merits and no prejudice
will be caused to the Plaintiff if he is permitted to file written statement on record.
Accordingly, he made prayer in above terms.
Plaintiff opposed Notice of motion on the ground that no sufficient and justified reason is
assigned by defendant no.1 to condone the delay caused in filing of written statement and
prayed to dismiss notice of motion.
Before adverting to the facts I would like to mention that it is a settled law that Order VIII
Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory and in specific circumstances written statement can be
accepted with reasons. It is also held that in an adversarial system, no party should be
denied an opportunity in participation of the justice dispensation system (Salem Bar
Association V/s Union of India 2003 AIR SCC 189 and Zolba V/s Keshav 2008 AIR
SCC 2099). In view of this legal position, now, I consider notice of motion.
No doubt there are latches on the part of defendant no.1 but in the interest of justice and
equity, it is unjust to deny defendant no.1 an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.
The delay caused is not inordinate and it cannot be said that it is deliberate. Moreso,
defendant no.1 has shown readiness to place written statement which has been drafted but
yet not affirmed. Considering above facts and reason assigned by defendant no.1, I am
inclined to allow Notice of motion and delay condonation application subject to payment of
certain costs. Hence, pass following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.4017/19 and application for delay condonation is allowed and made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five
Hundred only) within period of one week from date of order.
2. On payment of costs, written statement of defendant no.1 be taken on record.
Accordingly, NM no.4017/19 is disposed off.
…..............................
Costs paid by defendant no.1 to Adv for Plaintiff who received it on behalf of plaintiff.
Adj for hearing on NM No.2106/19 to 03.12.2019.
Judge
-- 1 of 1 --