Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is a Multinational Courier and Logistic Company, which has been arrayed as defendant in a suit for declaration filed by plaintiff -respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Distt. Ajmer. Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2014 by which its application u/s. 151 C.P.C. for accepting the written statement filed by it on record has been dismissed.
(2.) THIS Court while issuing notices of the writ petition on 27.5.2014 stayed the operation of the impugned order. Despite service, no one has appeared for the respondent -plaintiff when the matter was listed on 19.11.2014 and 4.12.2014.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner acts only as a courier agency. The goods that were imported by the respondents originated from Tiavan and were to be handed over to the plaintiff -respondent at Ajmer, but were detained by custom authorities in November, 2010. The petitioner by its final reminder dated 18.12.2010 and abandonment letter dated 21.12.2010 brought to the notice of the respondent to get the goods cleared within 30 days, otherwise the same would be treated as abandoned/sold as per Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the suit was barred by Section 48 of the Act, the defendant -petitioner instead of directly filing the written statement filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint as barred by law. The trial court dismissed the application by order dated 1.5.2013 and fixed the matter on 8.5.2013 as the date for filing the written statement and also simultaneously directed that in case the written statement is not filed by that date, the right of the defendant -petitioner to file written statement stands forfeited. Learned counsel argued that petitioner could not file the written statement upto 8.5.2013 because it came to know about the time limit on 8.5.2013 itself. Till the certified copy of the order was delivered to them on 8.5.2003, the suit was at very initial stage and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in straightaway directing closure of the defendant's right to file written statement and adjourned the matter to record the evidence of the plaintiff on 7.8.2013. The petitioner sent the duly drafted written statement along with application under Section 151 C.P.C., which was filed before the Court. The trial court has rejected such application by impugned order dated 25.4.2014 by taking a very hyper technical approach. Learned counsel submitted that the first date on which the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the trial court was 11.1.2013 after service and thereafter the matter was at a very preliminary stage and not many opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file written statement. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs. Kumar - : (2006) 1 SCC 46.;