Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3775 of 1999)
Petitioner: Om Prakash Gupta
Respondent: Union of India & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3775 of 1999)
Judges: A.P. MISRA & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 13, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 8, Rules 1,2 &10 – Written statement – Service affected on 11.10.96 – First date was 9.1.97 – No written statement filed – Time after time granted – Last order granting time on 12.1.99 – More than 2 years expired. Held that orders granting further time is set aside and application under Order 8, Rule 10 CPC of the Plaintiff is allowed. High Court to proceed in accordance with law.(Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By the order dated 25th 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 dis-closing 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 Capi-tal 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 applica-tion filed by the Appellant before the High Court under Order 8, Rule 10 of the CPC. Now, the court may proceed and dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. By the order dated 25th 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 dis-closing 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 Capi-tal 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 applica-tion filed by the Appellant before the High Court under Order 8, Rule 10 of the CPC. Now, the court may proceed and dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs.
