JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. Pursuant to the order dated 17.12.2004, the case is listed today.
2. Perused the Office Report dated 4.3.2005.
3. By the order dated 17.12.2004, it was, interalia, directed that the matter regarding service of notice by Registered Post A/D on the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the Respondent Nos. 7 to 12 would be considered on the next date fixed in the matter.
4. The Office Report dated 4.3.2005 shows that Acknowledgement Due Card bearing signature of Brij Pal Singh (Respondent No. 5) has been received back after service. In the circumstances, service of notice on the Respondent No. 5 by Registered Post A/D is deemed to be sufficient.
5. As regards the notices sent by Registered Post A/D to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the Respondent Nos. 7 to 12, the matter regarding service of notices sent by Registered Post A/D on the said Respondents will be considered on the next date fixed in the matter.
6. By the order dated 17.12.2004, fresh notices were directed to be issued by Registered Post A/D to the Respondent Nos. 6 and 13.
7. Office Report dated 4.3.2005 shows that the fresh notice sent to the Respondent No. 13 has again been returned back unserved with the following Report :
"Praptkarta ke ghar pata jane nahin milta isliye wapas.
Ha. apathniy 27.1.05."
8. Matter regarding service of notice sent to the Respondent No. 13 by Registered Post A/D will be considered on the next date fixed in the matter.
9. The said Office Report dated 4.3.2005 shows that pursuant to the directions given in the order dated 17.12,2004, fresh notice by Registered Post A/D has been issued to the Respondent No. 6. However, the Office has not submitted any Report regarding service of the said notice. Let this be done on the next date fixed in the matter.
10. The said Office Report dated 4.3.2005 further shows that the following Replies have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner in respect of the applications filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, as mentioned in the order dated 17.12.2004:
1. Civil Misc. Application No. 48678 of 2005 (Paper No. A-12) alongwith counter affidavit in reply to Civil Misc. Application No. 205390 of 2004 (Paper No. A-2) under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Civil Misc. Application No. 48681 of 2005 (Paper No. A-13) alongwith counter affidavit in reply to Civil Misc. Application No. 206397 of 2004 (Paper No. A-3) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Civil Misc. Application No. 48684 of 2005 (Paper No. A-14) alongwith counter affidavit In reply to Civil Misc. Application No. 206404 of 2004 (Paper No. A-5) under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
11. Shri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, prays that time be granted to him for filing rejoinder affidavits on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the aforesaid Replies filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Let rejoinder affidavits be filed by the next date fixed in the matter.
Civil Misc. Application No. 205381 of 2004 (Paper No. A-4)
12. The aforesaid application has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 under Section 151 read with Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, interalia, prayed in the aforesaid application that the Written Statement (Paper No. A-9) filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 on 9.11.2004 be accepted and be taken on record treating the same within time as provided in Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Rasheed Masood (Respondent No. 1) on 9.11.2004.
13. It is, interalia, stated in the said affidavit that there were Assembly Elections in the State of Maharashtra, and the Respondent No. 1 being the senior leader of Samajwadi Party was made incharge of the election campaign of the State of Maharashtra ; and that in order to look after the election campaign and to discharge his duty assigned to him, this Respondent No. 1 left Saharanpur on 7.9.2004 for Delhi from where he went to Mumbai and that the Respondent No. 1 was completely busy in election campaign, and in the meantime he did not come back to Saharanpur; and that the Respondent No. 1 attended and addressed his last election meeting at Nagpur on 9.10.2004 and returned to Delhi by air; and that the Respondent No. 1 returned to Saharanpur only on 11.10.2004 and then he received the notice of the Election Petition which was affixed at his residence in his absence; and that, thus, the Respondent No. 1 received the notice only on 11.10.2004, and before this date he could not receive the same as he was out of Saharanpur; and that the Written Statement was being filed within 30 days of the receipt of the notice of the Election Petition as provided under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
14. Shri R.K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has no objection to the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-4) being allowed and the Written Statement (Paper No. A-9) being taken on record.
15. As the averments made in the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-4) and its accompanying affidavit have not been controverted by the Petitioner, there is no reason, to doubt the correctness of the said averments.
16. From a perusal of the averments made in the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-4) and its accompanying affidavit, it is evident that the Respondent No. 1 was out of Saharanpur during the relevant period, and he came back to Saharanpur on 11.10.2004, and it was then that he received the notice of the Election Petition, which had been affixed at his residence.
17. In the circumstances, notice of the Election Petition would be deemed to have been served on the Respondent No. 1 on 11.10.2004.
18. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:
"[1. Written statement.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence.
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.]"
19. In the present case, the Written Statement (Paper No. A-9) was filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 on 9.11.2004, i.e., within thirty days of 11.10.2004 on which date the notice of the Election Petition would be deemed to have been served on the Respondent No. 1.
20. As such, the Written Statement on behalf of the Respondent No. l has been filed within the period of "thirty days from the date of service of summons" on the Respondent No. 1, as contemplated in Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
21. Even otherwise, having regard to the averments made in the aforesaid application and its accompanying affidavit, I am of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice that the period for filing the Written Statement on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 be extended till 9.11.2004 on which date the Written Statement (Paper No. A-9) was filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.
22. Accordingly, the time for filing the Written Statement on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 is extended till 9.11.2004, and the Written Statement (Paper No. A-9) filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 is taken on record.
23. The application (Paper No. A-4) stands disposed Of accordingly.
24. List this case on 29.4.2005