Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1077 (MP)

Rakesh Kumar v. Munnalal Agrawal

2006-09-08

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. This petition is filed by one of the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.8.2006 passed by III Civil Judge, Class I, Morena in Civil Suit No. 140-A/03. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Munnalal Agrawal has filed a civil suit for ejectment against the present petitioner and respondents 2 to 7. The present petitioner was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.3.1996. An application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed by the present petitioner which was dismissed on 13.4.1996. This order was not challenged by the present petitioner, thus this order attained finality. Thereafter, other respondents filed their written statement and the present petitioner continued to participate in the proceedings in the light of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [ AIR 1964 SC 993 ]. On the basis of the written statement filed by other respondents, issues were framed and the suit is now fixed for recording of evidence. At this stage, present petitioner has submitted his written statement and the trial Court refused to take the written statement on record, hence, this petition. 3. Contention of Shri Ankoor Mody, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by filing the written statement, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff and the matter will not be delayed. 4. This is not a consideration for allowing or rejecting this petition. The fact is that the present petitioner was proceeded ex parte by order dated 2.3.1996 and his application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed and that order attained finality. It is true that even after the defendant is proceeded ex parte he can participate in the further proceedings, but for reverting the clock back, the order proceeding ex parte has to be set aside. Unless and until that order is set aside, the clock cannot be reverted to back position by filing a written statement. Present petitioner wants to revert the clock back to the stage of filing written statement which is not penl1issible in law. 5. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/(Rs. Two thousand). Present petitioner wants to revert the clock back to the stage of filing written statement which is not penl1issible in law. 5. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/(Rs. Two thousand). Considering the fact that the suit is pending since 1996, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible and try to conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from today.