9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to order under Order 9 rule 7 CPC, Non-filing of written statement, Payment of costs, Adverse orders post filing of written statement, Protracted proceedings, Setting aside of orders, Expedited hearing
In this judgment, the main issue revolves around challenging an order dated 19.01.2004 of the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 46/03/00 under Order 9 rule 7 CPC. The judge dismissed the petitioner's application as the written statement had not been filed for a significant period, despite multiple adjournments granted to the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had taken undue advantage of the prolonged trial and should not be shown leniency. The petitioner argued that the written statement was filed on 12.03.2003 in the High Court, verified on 19.05.2005, and the delay in its inclusion in the case record was not their fault. Additionally, the amount in question had been deposited with the Company Court, ensuring security and causing no prejudice to the respondent. The respondent's counsel contended that the filing of the written statement was contingent upon the payment of costs, which had allegedly not been deposited. However, the petitioner's counsel claimed that the costs had indeed been paid. Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the case record, the court confirmed that the written statement was filed on 12.03.2003 and verified on 19.05.2005. The court noted the lack of explanation for the continued adjournments for filing the written statement when a copy could have been provided to the other party. The court emphasized that any adverse order made after the filing of the written statement should not have been considered. Due to the prolonged proceedings caused by repeated adjournments, the court found the orders dated 19.01.2004 and 15.03.2004 unjustified and set them aside. The petitioner was directed to pay a cost of &8377; 4,000/- to the respondent, with a copy of the written statement to be supplied to the respondent's counsel before the trial court's next date. The trial court was instructed to proceed with the matter promptly. Considering the age of the case, the trial court was advised to expedite the hearing. Consequently, CM(M) 678/2004 and CM. APPL.6630/2004 were disposed of by the court.
|
