Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1919 - SC - Indian LawsCondonation of delay of 15 years and 54 days in filing written statement - Failure to refund the money or handover possession of certain flats - recovery of dues allegedly payable by the respondents to the appellant of about ₹ 11.9 crores with additional interest - HELD THAT:- The circumstance which weighed with the High Court in condoning the delay was that though the suit was filed in the year 2000, summons were served only in the year 2009. Plea of the appellant that summons were actually served in the year 2000 itself was not accepted. On this basis, the High Court came to the conclusion that since appellant itself took time of 9 years after institution or following of the suit, to serve the summons upon the respondents herein, equities were balanced by allowing the respondents to file the written statement, more so, when no irreparable loss or prejudice was caused to the appellant and no case of mala fides was made out against the respondents. It has to be borne in mind that as per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendant is obligated to present a written statement of his defence within thirty days from the date of service of summons. Proviso thereto enables the Court to extend the period upto ninety days from the date of service of summons for sufficient reasons - In such a situation, onus upon the defendant is of a higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate a valid reason for not filing the written statement within thirty days. This reason of the High Court that delay was condoned ‘by balancing the rights and equities’ is farfetched and, in the process, abnormal delay in filing the written statement is condoned without addressing the relevant factor, viz. whether the respondents had furnished proper and satisfactory explanation for such a delay. The approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous in law and cannot be countenanced - Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay was rejected - Appeal allowed.
|