Himachal Pradesh High Court
Communist Party Of India (Marxist) vs Bawa Jung Bahadur on 31 March, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 81 of 2016.
.
Decided on: 31st March, 2016.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) .......Petitioner.
Versus Bawa Jung Bahadur ......Respondent.
Coram of The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner rt : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).
Challenge herein is to the order dated 25.2.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Shimla, whereby an application for seeking extension of time to file the written statement beyond the statutory period of 90 days has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner-defendant was served on 17.11.2015 in the suit. He, however, has failed to file the written statement on or before 17.2.2016 viz the statutory 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:49 :::HCHP 2period of 90 days. He filed an application on 25.2.2016 seeking extension of time for filing the written statement.
.
The said application has been dismissed vide order under challenge on the ground firstly that petitioner-defendant has failed to file the written statement within the statutory period of 90 days. Secondly that there is no specific prayer of in the application as to how much further time is required for filing the written statement.
rt
3. Having gone through the record and taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, no doubt, the petitioner-defendant has failed to file the written statement within the statutory period, however, the observations in the impugned order that no specific time was sought by the petitioner-
defendant are not in accordance with the record for the reason that the application, a copy whereof is annexure P-1, makes it crystal clear that the petitioner-defendant had sought one month's more time for filing the written statement. The time as sought should have been granted in the ends of justice and the lis disposed of on merits after ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:49 :::HCHP 3 affording the opportunity of being heard to the parties on both sides.
.
4. True it is that under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a period of 90 days is prescribed for filing written statement from the date of service of the notice to the defendant, however, as per settled legal of principles, the rule of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial rt and real justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash the impugned order. The petitioner-
defendant now to file the written statement to the suit positively within three weeks from today, failing which his defence shall stand struck off. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary),
March 31, 2016 (ps) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:49 :::HCHP