- (1.) The 3 rd defendant Santosh Rani @ Anita whose defence was struck off by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 14.5.2012 on the ground that the 3 rd defendant failed to file the written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons from the 3 rd defendant, has preferred the present Revision.
(2.) The suit was filed by the 1 st respondent herein Nirmala Devi praying for declaration that the appointment of the 3 rd defendant was wrong and illegal and liable to be set aside. Of course on appearance by the 3 rd defendant on receipt of summons in the suit the trial Court directed the 3 rd defendant to file written statement within the time stipulated under the Code of Civil Procedure and posted the matter for hearing on 14.5.2012 after giving threeopportunities to the 3 rd defendant to file the written statement. The trial Court having held that within 90 days from the date of receipt of the summons, the 3 rd defendant failed to file the written statement, chose to strike off the defence of the 3 rd defendant on 14.5.2012, when the matter came up for hearing.
(3.) Heard the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent. In my considered view, the order passed by the trial Court smacks of hyper technical approach. The order passed by the trial Court would disclose that on 14.5.2012 when the matter was taken up for hearing by the trial Court, of course with a delay of about 6 days in filing the written statement, the 3 rd defendant came forward to file her written statement but the trial Court without admitting the written statement filed by the 3 rd defendant on the date of hearing simply struck of the defence and also chose to dismiss the review application filed by the defendant praying to admit the written statement which was produced by the 3 rd defendant.;