Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 788 (ORI)

SURENDRA SINGH BHOI v. TUKUNI SAHU

2014-11-21

BISWANATH RATH

body2014
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This is an application filed by the sole-respondent for condonation of delay of two days in filing written statement. The respondent in filing this application submitted that by order dated 30.10.2014 two weeks time was granted as a last chance to the respondent to file the written statement and the Election petition was posted to 14.11.2014. The respondent submitted that even though the written statement was prepared in time but for unavoidable circumstance the respondent signed, verified and sworn the same on 14.11.2014 for which the written statement could not filed within time stipulated by this Court. The respondent further pleaded that delay caused for filing of written statement is bona fide could not intentional but due to unavoidable circumstances at the end of the respondent. In the above premises the respondent claimed for condonation of two days delay in filing the written statement and for acceptance of the written statement already submitted in Court. 2. Per contra, the Election petitioner filed an objection to the aforesaid application indicating therein that in spite of repeated direction, the written statement was not filed in time. However, on consideration of request of the respondent, by order dated 30.10.2014 this Court was pleased to grant two weeks time to the respondent for filing of written statement, fixing the election petition to 14.10.2014. The Election petitioner further contended that the trial of the election petition is a time bound process. Following Section 86(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, trial of election petition shall so far as practicable consistently with the interest of justice be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the High Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded thereon. Following Section 86(7) of the said Act, provision has been made for concluding the election petition as expeditiously as possible so as to be concluded within six months from the date of which the election petition is presented to the High Court for trial. Election petitioner further contended that that in spite of grant of time to the respondent to file the written statement awarding a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, the respondent could not became fairful and in the above premises, the election petitioner objected the petition for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. 3. Election petitioner further contended that that in spite of grant of time to the respondent to file the written statement awarding a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, the respondent could not became fairful and in the above premises, the election petitioner objected the petition for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. 3. There is admittedly delay of two days in filing the written statement. There is also no dispute that last adjournment was granted in favour of the respondent subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. I do not find any plausible reason assigned in the application for condonation of delay in filing written statement after two days of the time fixed. There is stray response of the respondent that for unavoidable reason the written statement even though was prepared in time but could not be signed, verified and sworn within the stipulated time. There is no other satisfactory explanation. "A). Considering the filing of written statement in election matter beyond the time fixed the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision rendered in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, considering the fact that the written statement has already been filed in the High Court directed for acceptance of the written statement subject to payment of cost payable by the respondent to the election petitioner. B). Similarly in another decision enunciated in the case of Bibhabati Chakrabarti and others v. Major Rama Chandra Mishra and others, (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases-441 taking into resort to the provisions contained in Order 8, Rule 1 and Sections 35, 35-A and 35-B of the Code of. Civil Procedure, 1908 the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Trial Court to accept the written statement filed beyond 90 days period on payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost. C). Law is also well settled as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court between Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Civil Procedure, 1908 the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Trial Court to accept the written statement filed beyond 90 days period on payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost. C). Law is also well settled as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court between Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, particularly holding that when substantial justice and technical considering are pitted against each other, cause substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay." In view of the aforesaid three citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the submissions of respondent that he was unable to file the written statement for unavoidable circumstances and taking note of the fact that there is only two days delay in filing the written statement, on the premises that a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay as in such event he runs to serious risk, I am inclined to accept the petition for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. However for causing harassment to the election petitioner and for causing delay in disposal of the Election petition, I direct acceptance for written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) only which amount to be paid to the Election petitioner within a period of three days. The Misc. Case is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed