Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalawatidevi Bansilal Haryanvi ... vs Hariyana Nagar Grih Nirman Sahkari ... on 28 July, 2014
1
W.P. No.3776/2014
28.7.2014
Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned senior counsel with Shri
Ayushman Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri A.K. Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri Rahul
Sethi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 28.02.2014 whereby the trial Court has closed the right of the petitioners to file written statement as well as the reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is found that since the petitioner inspite of three opportunities granted by the trial Court had not filed the written statement as well as the reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, therefore, the trial Court has closed the petitioners rights to file the written statement.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that subsequently the written statement as well as the reply to the temporary injunction application has been 2 filed by the petitioners on 09.07.2014 along with an application under Section 151 of the CPC but since the trial Court has passed the present order on 28.02.2014, therefore, there is an impediment in accepting the written statement by allowing the said application.
As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is pending since 01.10.2013 and the same has not been decided till now. He has further submitted that the suit itself needs to be decided expeditiously.
Considering the circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the matter has not progressed before the trial court after passing of impugned order, I am of the opinion that the reply as well as the written statement which has been filed by the petitioners may be brought on record on the payment of appropriate cost since the same will serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the trial Court to take on record the written statement as well as the reply to the temporary injunction application on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to the respondent. The decision on the respondent's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has been delayed 3 on account of non filing of the reply by the respondent, therefore, the trial Court is directed to decide the respondent's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC by 31.8.2014. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter the trial of the suit itself is expedited.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok