Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 920 (MP)

Hitendra Sharma v. Renu Chandwani

2015-09-02

ROHIT ARYA

body2015
ORDER 1. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the orders passed by the trial Court on 27.1.2015 and 8.5.2015 by which petitioner’s right to file written-statement has been closed. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass. 3. Respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction. Summons were issued for appearance of the defendant on 1.7.2014. On the said date, defendant sought time to file written-statement with a prayer that the plaintiff be directed to supply copy of the documents annexed with the plaint as the same were not received along with the summons. However, the trial Court did not accede to the aforesaid prayer. Defendant did not file the written-statement. On 27.1.15, when the petitioner-defendant reiterated his prayer for supply of documents, the same was not acceded to by the trial Court on the permise that as per report of the Nazir, along with summons, copy of plaint and documents were supplied and since defendant had not filed the written-statement, his right to file the same was closed. Thereafter, again the petitioner moved an application under section 151, CPC seeking leave of the Court to file written-statement within 20 days. However, the said application was taken up for consideration, as late as, on 8.5.2015 and on the said date the application was rejected on the premise that even after 20 days’ time, defendant had not filed the written-statement, and, therefore, there was no justification to further grant time and the written-statement presented on that date i.e. on 8.5.2015 was not taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under section 151, CPC, in fact and in effect, was not dealt with keeping in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience. In fact the petitioner-defendant since did not have the relevant documents which were filed with the plaint, hence he could not file the written-statement. The trial Court ought to have considered it in the right earnest, but that was not done. It is submitted that in any case if the prayer was made for supply of the documents, the trial Court ought to have ordered the plaintiff-respondent to supply documents so that written-statement could be filed and in that process the Court’s time also would have been saved, but that was not done. It is submitted that in any case if the prayer was made for supply of the documents, the trial Court ought to have ordered the plaintiff-respondent to supply documents so that written-statement could be filed and in that process the Court’s time also would have been saved, but that was not done. As a result, the proceedings are prolonged for more than one year. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that conduct of the petitioner-defendant speaks volumes about his intention of delaying the proceedings as between 1.7.2014 to 8.5.2015, though various opportunities were granted, but written-statement was not filed. However, on his application under section 151, CPC, when right to file written-statement was closed on 8.5.2015, immediately the petitioner-defendant presented the written-statement which was turned down, but this reflects the conduct of the petitioner-defendant that earlier though he did not file the written-statement on the premise that documents were not supplied, but on 8.5.2015, when his right to file the same was closed, he immediately filed the written-statement even without the documents, as alleged by him. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution, as orders passed by the trial Court on 27.1.2015 and 8.5.2015 do not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, true it is that there is delay on the part of petitioner-defendant in the matter of filing written-statement. However, the grievance of petitioner-defendant of non supply of documents could have been redressed by the trial Court by directing the respondent-plaintiff to supply documents so that the written-statement could be filed. The matter should not have been prolonged only for the reason that there was dispute between the parties as regards supply of documents. The trial Court should also have borne in mind that procedural laws are handmaid laws for regulating the procedure to subserve the ends of justice. Extension of time for filing written-statement for bona fide reasons can always be taken recourse to as the procedure is not for scuttling the proceedings, but for advancing the cause of justice. 7. The trial Court should also have borne in mind that procedural laws are handmaid laws for regulating the procedure to subserve the ends of justice. Extension of time for filing written-statement for bona fide reasons can always be taken recourse to as the procedure is not for scuttling the proceedings, but for advancing the cause of justice. 7. Be that as it may, without commenting upon rival submissions of the parties or upon the orders passed by the Court below, the trial Court is directed to take on record the written-statement filed by the petitioner-defendant and proceed with the trial, in accordance with law. As the subject matter relates to landlord tenant dispute, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within one year from the date of appearance of the parties. However, this order shall be subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as cost payable to respondent-plaintiff by the petitioner-defendant within fifteen days from today. 8. Petition disposed of, accordingly.