- (1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai made in I.A.No.22549 of 2004 in O.S.No.6750 of 2004, dismissing the petition seeking rejection of the written statement filed by the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner.
(2.) DALIT Liberation Education Trust (in short 'the Trust') was established in the year 1985. plaintiffs, D-1 and D-2 are the founding trustees. The revision petitioner/plaintiff was the managing trustee. On 14.2.2002, the Board of Trustees has passed resolutions, some of which were against the revision petitioner/ plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff and others have filed multitude of suits. O.S.No.6750 of 2004 was filed: (i) for declaration that the resolutions passed in the emergency meeting of the Trust Board Meeting of Dalit Liberation Education Trust held at Chennai on 21.6.2004 and 3.7.2004 as null and void; (ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the said resolutions passed on 21.6.2004 and 3.7.2004 and also restraining the second defendant from acting as the Managing Director and defendants 5, 6 and 7 as the arbitrators or the trust and other reliefs. When the suit was filed, Advocate Mr. Peppin Fernando has undertaken to file vakalat for R-1 in the injunction application. I.A.No.22549 of 2004: Plaintiff has filed this petition for restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the Trust on the basis of the resolutions passed in the Trust Board Meeting held on 21.6.2004 and 3.7.2004. On 19.1.2005, vakalat for defendants 1 to 3 and 5 was filed. Written statement was filed on 28.4.2005. Written statement filed in the suit was sought to be treated as counter statement in I.A.No.22549 of 2004. Plaintiff has raised objection on the ground that the written statement was not filed within the stipulated time and that the same cannot be treated as counter statement and the injunction application is to be allowed on the ground of non-filing of the counter statement. The defendant resisted the contention, narrating the happenings in filing the counter statement. According to the defendants 1, 3 and 5, the Board or Trustees have also filed separate application for injunction restraining the plaintiff/revision petitioner from interfering with the administration of the Board of Trustees. In that application, the plaintiff has filed the counter. The applications filed by both the plaintiff and the revision petitioner were posted for enquiry. It is alleged that with an intention to avoid the Court from passing the order on merits, the plaintiff has raised the plea to reject the written statement. It is further alleged that the revision petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the revision to delay the enquiry proceedings in the I.As., filed by both the plaintiff and the Board of Trustees. In consideration of the submissions, the trial Court has found that the power of Court to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by O.8, Rule 1, C.P.C., is not completely taken away. Finding that the time stipulated is only a procedural directory and not mandatory, the learned Assistant Judge negative the contention the plaintiff, seeking rejection of the written statement and posted the suit for framing issues. Aggrieved over the impugned order, plaintiff has filed this revision petition. As the impugned order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that the power to extend the time for filing the Written statement cannot be exercised without an application to receive the written statement. Placing reliance upon Kailash V Nanhku and others, (2005) 3 CTC 355, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that for receiving the written statement beyond thirty days, reasons are to be recorded and in the impugned order, no reasons are recorded for receiving the written statement. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that extension of time for filing the written statement could be only by way of exception and such exceptional circumstance has not arisen in the instant case. The impugned order is attacked on the ground that when no application for extension of time was filed the Court cannot be benevolent in extending the time for filing the written statement as of routine. In fairness, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has also drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi and others, (2005) 4 L.W.277: (2005) 4 C.T.C.809, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Court has power to hold the same as directory.
(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, the learned counsel of the contesting respondents has also placed reliance upon the same decision Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi and others, (20 L.W. 277: (2005) 4 C.T.C.809. Drawing attention of the Court to the series of litigation filed by the plaintiff, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that only on petition the Court has extended the time for filing of the written statement. It is further submitted that at the time of filing the written statement, the plaintiff has not raised any objection and when the injunction application was taken up for enquiry, nearly two months after the filing of the written statement, or the first time the plaintiff has raised objection to reject the written statement on the ground that the written statement was not filed within the stipulated time. Submitting that the procedure is only handmaid of justice and the time stipulated for filing O.8, Rule 1, C.P.C., is only directory, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents/defendants has submitted that the Court below was right in receiving the written statement filed on 26.4.2005 and that there is no reason warranting interference. The only point that arises for consideration is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order receiving the written statement beyond ninety days suffers from serious and substantial error warranting interference. Regarding the administration of the Trust, dispute arose between the parties. Defendants have stated that on 14.2.2002, Board of Trustees have passed some resolutions, some of which are against the revision petitioner, which has resulted in multitude of litigation. For appreciating the factual back ground, we may briefly refer to them. (a) O.S.No.2136 of 2002: This suit was filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff before the V Assistant City Civil Court, challenging the validity of notice of emergent meeting. The suit was dismissed on 6.7.2005. (b) O.S.No.3909 of 2002: The supporters of the plaintiff have filed this suit on the file of V Assistant City Civil Court, challenging the co"option of two trustees. The said suit was also dismissed on 6.7.2005. (c) C.S.No.875 of 2002: The same supporters have filed the suit in the High Court to remove the Chairman of the Trust. In that suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff supporting the cause of the third parties, filed the application in A.No.532 of 2004 seeking injunction against the Board from convening Board Meeting. The High Court has passed the order against the petitioner himself. (d) C.C.No.8841 of 2002: The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed this criminal case on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate against the Chairman or the Trust for defamation. It is stated that the said case has been dismissed with strong observation against the petitioner. (e) O.S.No.4350 of 2002: Plaintiff has filed this suit on the file of the 11 Assistant City Civil Court. In the said suit in I.A.No.12851 of 2002, the Court has passed conditional order against the revision petitioner/plaintiff to convene the Board Meeting and give account in the Board. The revision petitioner is said to have violated the order and contempt application has been filed and the same is pending. Against the order in I.A.No.12651 of 2002, the plaintiff has filed C.M.A.No.175 of 2003, later that appeal has been withdrawn. The present suit O.S.No.6750 of 2004 is yet another proliferation of the litigation by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Alleging that the plaintiff has engaged unruly elements inside the Trust premises and prevented the Board of Trustees from functioning, the Trustees have filed I.A.No.13122 of 2005 restraining the plaintiff from preventing the Board of Trustees from functioning. ;