Delhi High Court
Ranbir vs Slokya College Of Nursing on 26 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No.779/2014 & C.M.Nos.13813-13814/2014
% 26th AUGUST, 2014
RANBIR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
VERSUS
SLOKYA COLLEGE OF NURSING ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No doubt, the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2441 has held that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is directory i.e written statement need not be filed within the original period of 30 days and even within the extended period upto 90 days with an application giving reasons for codonation of delay (viz written statement can be taken on record even after period of 90 days), however, the Supreme Court in that very judgment clarifies that routine delays should not be condoned as it would be destructive of the legislative amendment of bringing in a limitation period CM(M) No.779/2014 Page 1 of 4 for filing of the written statement. Legislature brought amendments because defendants in suits were deliberately delaying the disposal of suits by delaying the filing of written statement over many months. This is one such case.
2. The subject suit is a suit for recovery of Rs.13,86,922/- against the petitioner/defendant who was given rights to run a mess by the respondent/plaintiff college, but the petitioner is alleged as per the plaint not to have paid the mess charges. Petitioner as per the plaint was given the benefit of running of the mess which was only to help the petitioner/defendant who was in a poor condition and right to run the mess was given by in fact relaxing the condition of payment of security deposit due to the pitiable condition of the petitioner.
3(i) In the present case, delay to be condoned is not in the extended period of 60 days or even of one month or two months thereafter, but of a period of 10 months. No doubt, CPC is a handmaid of justice and the costs can be imposed as per the facts of the case to condone the delay in filing of the written statement however the delay ought not to be condoned as a routine.
CM(M) No.779/2014 Page 2 of 4
(ii) In the present case, the only ground for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the written statement was that the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner/defendant tagged the file in different folder and due to the renovation work in the office of the counsel for the petitioner/defendant, the file could not be traced out, but no affidavit of the Advocate in support of the application for extension of time for filing of the written statement was filed. Therefore, the contents of the application cannot be believed because they had to be supported by the affidavits not only of the Advocate but also of the clerk who allegedly tagged the file along with the wrong case and that there was renovation work going on in the office of the advocate.
4. In the peculiar facts of the present case, I find that the petitioner/defendant has not given the necessary sufficient explanation for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement and if delays in cases such as the present are condoned, the same would amount to destroying of the legislative intent in bringing in a limitation period for filing of the written statement.
5. The respondent/plaintiff in spite of striking of the defence of the petitioner/defendant will still have to prove its case. The petitioner will also CM(M) No.779/2014 Page 3 of 4 have a right to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff as also to address arguments.
6. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 26, 2014 KA CM(M) No.779/2014 Page 4 of 4