Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) IN the civil suit for specific performance of agreement and perpetual injunction as filed by the Plaintiffs -Respondents, the Defendant -Petitioner was served with summons on 22.02.2010. For the Petitioner having failed to file the written statement and the reply to the temporary injunction application within time and having failed to appear, the learned Trial Court marked his absence on 08.07.2010 and proceeded to close down his right of filing written statement and reply. Thereafter, on 27.09.2010, the Petitioner moved the applications (Annex. 3) before the Trial Court stating that he could not file the written statement and reply earlier for his and his wife's ailments; and prayed for taking the written statement and reply on record. By the impugned orders dated 19.02.2011 (Annex. 6), the learned Trial Court has rejected the applications so moved by the Petitioner essentially with reference to the fact that the earlier order dated 08.07.2010 remains operating and has not been challenged in appropriate proceedings. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) DURING the course of submissions in this writ petition, it is an admitted position that the Petitioner has indeed filed the written statement and reply to the temporary injunction application before the Trial Court. Seeking to challenge the orders dated 08.07.2010 and 19.02.2011 (Annex. 2 and Annex. 6) it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Trial Court has taken rather a rigid view of the matter and has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it to enlarge the time for filing the written statement and reply. It is submitted that for the reasons and circumstances pointed out by the Petitioner, the learned Trial Court could have taken the written statement and reply on record without causing any prejudice to either of the parties; and that the same deserve to be taken on record for affording proper opportunity of defence to the Petitioner and for just and effectual adjudication.
(3.) PER contra, it is contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner only attempted to prolong the proceedings and failed to file the written statement and the reply to temporary injunction application in time and even avoided to appear before the Court; and hence, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the orders impugned. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the two orders dated 08.07.2010 and 19.02.2011 in one writ petition nor is entitled to challenge the orders passed in the original suit and the temporary injunction application by way of one writ petition.;