Omaxe reviews - omaxe ltd. vs. roma international pvt. ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
CM(M) 729/2012 with CM 10873/2012 & 10874/2012
Date of Decision: 02.07.2012
M/S. OMAXE LTD. & ORS. …… Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mukti Bodh, Advocate.
Versus
M/S. ROMA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. …… Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails order dated
06.07.2011 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby an application
for condonation of delay in filing Written Statement by the petitioners was
dismissed. It also assails order dated 30.03.2012 whereby review
application of order dated 06.07.2011 was dismissed by the learned ADJ.
2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery against all the three
petitioners. As per record, notices were sent to the petitioners by Speed Post
on 13th August, 2010. The AD card bore the stamp of 17th August, 2010 of
the Post Office. This testified that the petitioners were served on 17th
August, 2010. On 1st November 2010 the petitioners appeared, but the WS
was not filed. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on few dates and it was
only on 4th February, 2011 that the petitioners filed an application under
section 5 of Limitation Act r/w section 148 and 151 of CPC seeking
condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The delay was sought
to be condoned mainly on the ground that the petitioners were involved in
construction of various sites and the documents pertaining to this case were
not traceable and could only be traced after much efforts. It was also
averred that it took some time to requisition the relevant documents and on
receipt thereof the same were sent to their counsel for preparing WS and in

the process, the filing of WS got delayed. It was averred that the same was
not intentional or deliberate. The said application was dismissed vide the
impugned order dated 6th July 2012 by the learned ADJ. The review against
the said order was also dismissed by the learned ADJ vide his order dated
30.03.2012. The petitioners assail both these orders in the present petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
record.
4. The submissions which have been made in the present petition are
similar to what were made before the learned ADJ in support of application
seeking condonation of delay as also review petition. The sum and
substance of the submission was that the documents relating to the case in
question could not be located for considerable time and after these were
traced, they were given to their counsel who took some time to prepare the
WS.
5. The learned Counsel submitted that the delay in filing the WS was not
intentional and that the same may be condoned in the interest of justice as no
prejudice was to be caused to the respondent.
6. After the amendment of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, an obligation is casted
on the defendant to file WS within 30 days after service of summons on him.
However, for the reasons to be recorded in writing the court may, in a given
case, also extend the time up to 90 days for filing written statement. There is
no doubt that the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directing
and not substantive and that in an appropriate case, on the defendant
showing good cause of not being able to file the WS within the period of 90
days, the court can extend the time. But it is trite that the time could only be
extended in exceptional hard cases. It was apparent from the legislative
intention which has fixed the upper time limit as 90 days. Thus, the
discretion could be exercised by the Court to extend the time not in routine
and on the mere asking of the defendant. It is more so when the period of 90
days stands expired. As per Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu
Vs. UOI AIR 2005 SC 3353, the discretion of the court to extend the time
could not be exercised frequently and routinely so as to nullify the period
fixed by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC.
7. Now having seen the intent of the law as above, it may be noted that
in the instant case the petitioners were served on 17th August, 2010. Their

counsel appeared before the Court of ADJ on 6th October 2010. On 6th
October 2010 the matter was adjourned for 01.12.2010 with the directions to
the petitioners to supply advance copy of the WS to the opposite party. On
01.12.2010, the proxy counsel appeared for the petitioners, but, no WS was
filed till then. It was only on the next adjourned date i.e. 04.02.2011 that the
application for condonation of delay in filing the WS was filed by the
petitioners. The plea that was taken that the documents were misplaced at
some site and could be traced only after many efforts, is apparently vague
and irresponsible. Similar is the plea that the documents were given to the
counsel who took some time to prepare the WS. In the backdrop of
mandatory provision of law regarding filing of WS, the pleas taken for
seeking condonation are extremely vague and devoid of any merit. Not only
that, it is no where stated as to which were the documents misplaced and
from where these were traced and when, but the details of those documents
has also not been stated. No information/ material/ documents/ ledger which
were stated as not traceable, could be shown to be referred in the WS. When
questioned as to which were those documents and when these were
misplaced and from where these were traced and what was relevancy of
those documents for the purpose of WS, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners could not respond. The irresponsibility and carelessness of the
petitioners is reflected from the fact that they were served on 17.08.2010,
whereas the meetings of their Board of Directors to contest the case were
held on 30.09.2010, 06.10.2010 and 22.10.2010. This would demonstrate
that even the decisions regarding contesting the case were taken by the
petitioners much after expiry of the stipulated period of 30 days for filing of
WS. It is experienced that these are routine type of pleas which are taken for
delayed filing of the WS. Such unscrupulous pleas are nothing, but due to
irresponsible, careless and casual approach of the defendants in filing the
Written Statements. It was because of this tactical approach of the
defendants that the provisions were amended by the Parliament. The courts
shall not exercise discretion in extending the time on such kind of pleas to
scuttle the legislative intent and object of the provisions contained in Order 8
Rule 1 CPC. Such could not be in the category of cases where the court may
exercise discretion to extend time in the ends of justice.
8. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the discretion exercised by
the learned ADJ. There is no ground made out to interfere with the
impugned order. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed in limini.
Sd/-

Omaxe reviews - omaxe ltd. vs. roma international pvt. ltd.

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à Omaxe reviews - omaxe ltd. vs. roma international pvt. ltd.

Similaire à Omaxe reviews - omaxe ltd. vs. roma international pvt. ltd. (20)

Plus de omaxe-reviews

Plus de omaxe-reviews (9)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Omaxe reviews - omaxe ltd. vs. roma international pvt. ltd.