This petition is preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order of allowing written statement beyond the period of 30 days vide its order dated 16th May, 2012.
Learned advocate Mr Premal Rachh has mainly ventilated his grievance against the decision of trial Court whereby it allowed written statement the very next day of its rejection the previous day. Thus, identical relief when was once denied no ground was existing for its allowance. He further urged that the event of permitting the written statement beyond the period of 30 days and service of summons under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is already interpreted by the Apex Court in case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 and Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and in principle, there is no dispute, however, there must exist strong reasons and circumstances.
Learned advocate Mr.Rachh has correctly pointed out that the application for accepting the written statement was rejected on a previous day. The next day Court allowed it, by passing an impugned order. However, this petition is not being entertained nor is this issue to be stretched further.The summons was served to the defendant on 14th March, 2012 and written statement was expected to be filed by 14th April, 2012. However, written statement has been filed nearly one month therefore which cannot be said to be delay, requireing deeper scrutiny .
As far as application which was rejected the previous day, it can be noted from the record that in absence of presentation of written statement and on furnishing a request of adjournment by the learned advocate, Court rejected such application of adjournment. And this rejection was not on merits but due to absence of learned advocate. However, in the order impugned, on having found that a fair chance was required to be given to the other side and suit was still pending on hearing of the application of injunction as well, the Court allowed this application. There could have been better reasonings and properly adopted procedure while granting such application.
However, this petition is not being entertained in absence of any jurisdictional error or illegality affecting the right of the parties. This petition preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India being devoid of merits requires no entertainment.
This petition accordingly stands disposed of .
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J) bina Top