Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 733 (HP)

Nikka Ram v. Piar Chand

2019-06-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 05.01.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 320 of 2015, titled as Nikka Ram Vs. Shri Piar Chand and others, vide which, written statement filed by the respondents to the amended plaint, was ordered to be taken on record. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, who is plaintiff before the learned Court below, is that the order vide which the amendment in the suit was allowed, was passed on 10.11.2017 and thereafter, despite reasonable opportunities having been granted to the respondents to file the amended written statement, the same was not filed and this aspect of the matter had been ignored by the learned Trial Court while accepting the amended written statement filed by the respondents. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while allowing the amended written statement to be taken on record vide impugned order, learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that there was no reasonable cause assigned by the respondents as to why the amended written statement was not filed within a reasonable time. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there is no merit in the present petition as there was no inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in filing the amended written statement. He argued that amended written statement could not filed on earlier occasions, because when the Presiding Officer himself was not present in the Court, the respondents/defendants could not have filed the amended written statement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the record appended with the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint stood allowed by the learned Trial Court on 10.11.2017. Learned Court below after allowing the said application, listed the case for 09.01.2018 and the defendants were directed to file the amended written statement on or before the said date. Learned Court below after allowing the said application, listed the case for 09.01.2018 and the defendants were directed to file the amended written statement on or before the said date. Though it is a matter of record that on 09.01.2018, learned Presiding Officer was on leave, but record does not suggest that any amended written statement was tendered in the Court on behalf of the defendants on the said date. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 12.03.2018. On the said date also, though the learned Presiding Officer was on leave, however, again the record does not reveal that the amended written statement was ready for the purpose of filing with the defendants. On the said date, i.e., 12.03.2018, the next date fixed was 12.06.2018. On 12.06.2018, a prayer was made on behalf of the defendants for grant of time to file the amended written statement and the case for the said purpose was ordered to be listed on 14.08.2018. Thereafter, the case was listed on 14.08.2018, 15.09.2018 and 30.11.2018, but on the said dates, amended written statement was not filed and again and again request was made for extension of time to file the amended written statement. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 05.01.2019, when the amended written statement so filed by the defendants was ordered to be taken on record. 7. The abovementioned facts demonstrate that there is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was delay in filing of the amended written statement and the impugned order does not demonstrate as to why despite so much delay, the defence of the defendants was not struck of and why they were permitted to file the amended written statement at such a belated stage. 8. Be that as it may, as learned Trial Court in its discretion has permitted the amended written statement to be taken on record, this Court is not interfering with the order so passed, but the petition is being disposed of with the direction that in lieu of the amended written statement having been permitted by the learned Trial Court to be taken on record, the respondents herein shall pay cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. It is clarified that in case on the next date, cost, as mentioned above, is not paid by the respondents to the petitioner by way of a Demand Draft, then the amended written statement, which has been permitted to be taken on record vide order dated 05.01.2019, shall not be treated as part of the record. 9. Learned counsel for the parties point out and rightly so that in view of the order passed hereinabove, an application filed by the present petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Trial Court stands rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. 10. Parties through learned counsel are directed to appear before he learned Trial Court on 15th July, 2019. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application, if any.