Telangana High Court
Paramjeet Singh vs M/S. Loyola Educational Society And 2 ... on 1 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CRP Nos.703 and 721 of of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
1. These Civil Revision Petition Nos.703 and 721 of 2021 are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders in IA No.231 of 2020 and in IA No.232 of 2020 both dated 30.03.2021 in OS No.647 of 2018 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of both the CRPs, through this common order.
2. CRP No.703 of 2020 is filed assailing the order dated 30.03.2021 in IA No.231 of 2020 filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') to reopen the suit for taking the written statement on record in the suit, in the interest of justice. Whereas, CRP No.721 of 2021 is filed assailing the order dated 30.03.2020 in IA No.232 of 2020 filed u/s.151 of CPC to set aside the forfeiture order dated 23.01.2019 in the interest of justice.
3. The trial Court as per the orders in IA No.231 of 2020 reopened the case for the purpose of taking the written Page 2 of 10 AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021 statement of defendants on record holding that there are some other suits pending between the same parties, which facts would come into light only after conducting the trial. Similarly, while setting aside the forfeiture orders in IA No.232 of 2020, it is held that as the defendants have filed the written statement after one year five months, it can be taken on record to adjudicate the matter in proper manner, but on costs of Rs.7,000/- payable to the respondent/ plaintiff for his inordinate delay on or before the next date of adjournment.
4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Perused the material available on record. The detailed submissions have been made by both the parties, which are more or less on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary for this Court to refer in detail such submissions. However, the submissions so made have received due consideration of the Court.
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.
Page 3 of 10
AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021
6. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for ejection, recovery of arrears of rent and future mesne profits in OS No.647 of 2018. It appears, the suit summons were served on the defendants on 29.08.2018. They failed to file written statement within 90 days. However, the Court below has extended time for filing written statement till 23.01.2019 for more than two months after expiry of 90 days. In spite of the same, the defendants did not choose to file the written statement. Finally, the trial Court has forfeited the right of defendants for filing the written statement. Thus, there was a delay of one year five months in filing the written statement. When the original suit was adjourned to 18.02.2020, the plaintiff put forth their evidence and Exs.A.1 to A.5 documents are marked. There was no representation on behalf of the defendants. At that stage, the present applications came to be filed.
7. After hearing both sides and after elaborate discussion, considering the relevant case law, the learned trial Court Judge has allowed both the applications in IA Nos.231 and 232 of 2020 subject to payment of Rs.7,000/- Page 4 of 10
AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021 costs by the defendants to the plaintiff and also subject to filing of the written statement by the next date of hearing.
8. Admittedly, the written statement is filed by the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants has filed a memo dated 16.11.2021 before this Court stating that pursuant to the orders dated 30.03.2021 passed in IA Nos.231 and 232 of 2020 in OS No.647 of 2018, the respondents/defendants have paid an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff who issued a receipt dated 01.04.2021 to that effect and also submitted copies of receipt along with a memo. This memo dated 16.11.2021 and the receipts annexed thereto are not in dispute by the revision petitioner/plaintiff.
9. Thus the orders impugned in IA Nos.231 and 232 of 2020 are complied. The defendants have filed the written statement and paid the costs of Rs.7,000/-, which is acknowledged by the plaintiff.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff strenuously contends that the trial Court has Page 5 of 10 AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021 erred in allowing both the IAs and it is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Order-8 Rule-1 CPC. There is a jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court in permitting the defendants to file written statement after one year five months and relied on the principles laid in the following decisions:
i) Bijendra Nath Srivastava (dead) thorugh LRs v. Mayank Srivastava and others1;
ii) Amar Nath Om Prakash and others v. State of Punjab and others2;
iii) Orders dated 03.09.2021 of A.P. High Court in CRP No.472 of 2021 between Chekka Suryanarayana and others v. Saka Rajulamma and others.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants contends that the provisions of Order-8 Rule-1 CPC are directory in nature and it is always open to the Court to accept the written statement in exceptional circumstances by exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it 1 (1994) 6 SCC 117 2 (1985) 1 SCC 345 Page 6 of 10 AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021 and the provisions cannot be treated as mandatory in nature and relied on the principles laid in the following decisions:
i) Zolba v. Keshao and others3;
ii) Rajinder Tiwari v. Kedar Nath (deceased)
through legal representatives and others4;
iii) Siddalingayya v. Gurulingappa and others5;
iv) Orders dated 08.10.2021 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6304 of 2021 between Shoraj Singh v. Charan Singh.
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the principles laid in the above decisions, wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the proviso to Order-8 Rule-1 CPC is not mandatory in nature and written statement can be accepted in exceptional cases even after the stipulated period. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Order-8 Rule-1 CPC are mandatory in nature in the commercial courts under the Commercial Courts Act 2015, whereas in other cases 3 (2008) 11 SCC 769 4 (2019) 14 SCC 286 5 (2017) 9 SCC 447 Page 7 of 10 AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021 written statement can be accepted even after 90 days period, since it is directory in nature.
13. Thus, viewed from that perspective, the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in accepting the written statement by recording cogent reasons for the delay stating that there are several civil disputes between the parties and especially relating to the cancellation of registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property executed in favour of defendants 1 & 2, it is just and essential to give one more opportunity to the defendants to contest the suit. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the order impugned in this context.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants further contends that in compliance with the orders in IA Nos.231 and 232 of 2020, the defendants have paid the costs of Rs.7,000/- and it is accepted by the plaintiff, as per the receipt dated 01.04.2021 and once the plaintiff has accepted the costs, he cannot challenge the order impugned and relied on the principles laid in the following decisions:
Page 8 of 10
AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021
i) The Metal Press Works Ltd., Calcutta v.
Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd.6;
ii) Amar Singh v. Perhlad and others7;
iii) Akura Behera and others v. State of Orissa and others8.
15. In the present case, undisputedly the costs of Rs.7,000/- was paid by the defendants and accepted by the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the plaintiff passed a receipt to that effect. The plaintiff after accepting the costs is barred from attacking any part of the order impugned. In that view of the matter, while relying on the principles laid in the above decisions, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the orders impugned in IA Nos.231 and 232 of 2020.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants finally contends on the scope and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India relying on the principles laid in the following decisions: 6
AIR 1976 AP 205 7 AIR 1989 Punjab and Haryana 229 8 2003 AIHC 2625 Page 9 of 10 AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021
i) Ouseph Mathai and others v. M. Abdul Khadir9;
ii) Subodh Kumar gupta and others v. Alpana Gupta and others10;
iii) Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another11; and
iv) Mohammad Shafeeq v. Mirza Mohammad Husain and others12.
17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the principles laid in the above decisions.
18. In the present CRPs, the learned XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has rightly exercised the jurisdiction conferred under the proviso to Rule-1 of Order-8 of CPC and the orders impugned do not warrant interference.
19. In such facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, I do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the orders impugned and therefore, the orders in IA Nos.231 and 232 of 2020 in OS No.647 of 9 (2002) 1 SCC 319 10 (2005) 11 SCC 578 11 (2010) 9 SCC 385 12 (2002) 9 SCC 460 Page 10 of 10 AVRJ CRP Nos.703 & 721 of 2021 2018 are sustainable and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
19. In the result, CRP Nos.703 and 721 of 2021 are dismissed confirming the impugned orders dated 30.03.2021 in IA Nos.231 and 232 of 2020 in OS No.647 of 2018 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. However, in the circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Date: 01.04.2022 Isn