Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 523 (CAL)

S Dasgupta And Associates v. Asish Guha

2020-06-23

MANOJIT MANDAL

body2020
JUDGMENT Manojit Mandal, J. - This application is filed at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner and is directed against the Order being No. 8 dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in connection with Money Suit No. 338 of 2017 thereby accepting the written statement of the defendant filed after a delay of 297 days from the statutory period of limitation. 2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit being Money Suit No. 338 of 2017 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,74,767/- together with pendente lite interest thereon before the City Civil Court, Calcutta, and was placed for adjudication before the learned Judge, 13th Bench of the said learned Court. 3. The defendant/opposite party entered appearance in the said suit and prayed for an adjournment for filing written statement. The learned trial Judge allowed such prayer of the opposite party and fixed on 17th November, 2017, for filing the same. The opposite party/defendant filed several applications praying for time for filing written statement on several occasions. Thereafter, on 26.03.2018, plaintiff/petitioner filed an application praying before the learned trial Judge, 13th Bench, for fixing the date for ex parte hearing of the suit on the ground of specific violation of the provisions laid down in Order VIII Rule 1 as well as Order V Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ultimately, the defendant submitted a written statement on 19.09.2018 delaying 297 days after expiry of the statutory period of limitation. The learned Trial Judge accepted the written statement filed by the opposite party/defendant by the impugned order and thereby condoned the delay of 297 days upon payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) by the impugned order. 4. Being aggrieved, this revisional application has been filed. 5. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and on perusal of the record, I find that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit being No. 338 of 2017 against the opposite party for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,74,767/- along with pendente lite interest thereon. The opposite party/defendant had filed written statement delaying 297 days from the statutory period of limitation. The opposite party clearly stated in the petition dated 11.09.2018 that delay was caused due to various ailments suffered by the opposite party/defendant, and, as such, the written statement could not be filed in time. 2,74,767/- along with pendente lite interest thereon. The opposite party/defendant had filed written statement delaying 297 days from the statutory period of limitation. The opposite party clearly stated in the petition dated 11.09.2018 that delay was caused due to various ailments suffered by the opposite party/defendant, and, as such, the written statement could not be filed in time. Therefore, it is clear that the opposite party clearly stated the special grounds for not filing the written statement within time. Moreover, since the suit has been filed against the opposite party, he should be given an opportunity to contest the suit otherwise the opposite party would suffer irreparable loss and injury. In my view, the trial Court had the jurisdiction to accept the written statement even at that stage if the special grounds for not filing the written statement within the period of 90 days are shown. When the learned trial Court exercised its jurisdiction and decided to accept the written statement so that there could be contested hearing of the suit, I am not inclined to interfere with that order. 6. Learned Trial Court is, therefore, requested to fix a date for payment of cost as awarded by the learned Trial Court within 15 days from the date of communication of this order. The Trial Court is also requested to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 7. The impugned order is, therefore, confirmed. 8. With the above observation the revisional application is disposed of. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.