Supreme Court of India
Om Prakash Gupta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: JT2000(7)SC500, (2000)3MLJ154(SC), AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3585, 2000 AIR SCW 3798.2, 2000 SCFBRC 375, (2000) 3 ICC 635, (2001) 1 BLJ 350, 2000 HRR 848, (2002) 2 LANDLR 31, (2000) 3 MAD LJ 154, (2000) 6 SUPREME 489, (2000) 4 CURCC 96, (2000) 7 JT 500 (SC)
Author: D.P. Mohapatra
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. By the order dated 2511 February, 2000 learned Counsel for the Union of India was granted, as a last chance, two weeks' time for filing counter. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor any application made explaining any reason for not filing the same. This Court by Order dated 13.12.1999 made it clear that this matter will be finally disposed of on 25th February, 2000. No counter affidavit is filed on this date as aforesaid in spite of last opportunity granted. In spite of indulgence, even today neither any counter is filed nor any application is filed disclosing any reason for not filing the same. So we proceed to dispose of this appeal finally today.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. In fact, grievance of the Appellant is, Respondents because of their inaction are delaying the legitimate relief to which Appellant is entitled. In the suit proceedings, before the Delhi High Court, the same Respondent has yet not filed any written statement in spite of repeated time being granted. We express with restraint that there is total callousness on the part of the Union of India. Learned Counsel for the Union of India states that the real party contesting this matter is the National Capital Territory of Delhi which has also been served but yet no counter has been filed on its behalf. In view of this, we are left with on option but to proceed to dispose of this appeal.
5. We feel on the facts of this case, the High Court granting indulgence to the Union of India further time for filing written statement would not be justified. Normally, we would not have interfered with this innocuous order but on facts of this case, we feel it appropriate, in the interest of justice to interfere with it. In this suit Union of India was served on 11th October, 1996 and first date of hearing was 9th January 1997, no written statement was filed then. Since thereafter repeated time was granted by the Court, for the same yet it was not filed. When the impugned order was passed granting further time, more than two years expired yet no written statement was filed. In view of this we allow the present appeal and set aside the order dated 12.1.1999 passed by the High Court. We also allow the application filed by the Appellant before the High Court under Order 8, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Now, the court may proceed and dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs.