K.S.Sidhu, J. - (1.) This petition under Section 115 of the Civil p. C. is directed against the order, dated, Aug. 7, 1978, made by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the learned Judge forfeited the defendant's right to present a written statement of her defence.
(2.) The facts material to the decision of this petition may be shortly stated. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation, the respondent herein, brought a suit against Sushila Jain, the petitioner herein, for recovery of Rs. 6,00,089.94 P. on the basis of a contract of guarantee, on Oct. 13, 1976. The defendant who is a resident of New Delhi could not be served with the summons of the court in spite of repeated efforts made by the process serving agency of the court over a period of nearly 1 year. This led the court to believe that the respondent was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service. The court had therefore to take resort to substituted service by advertisement in a daily newspaper, fixing Oct. 27, 1977, as the date for the appearance of the defendant. The defendant entered appearance that day, but did not file her written statement of defence on the plea that no copy of the plaint was available to her for making the reply. The court arranged to supply her with a copy of the plaint, permitting her to present the written statement on Jan. 12, 1978. The case had to be adjourned many a time between Jan. 12 to March 10, 1978, but the defendant did not avail of these opportunities to present her written statement of defence. On March 10, 1978, she filed an application under Sections 10 and 151 C. P. C. for stay of the suit. This application was dismissed by the court on July 18, 1978. Taking a somewhat indulgent view in the matter, the court granted further time permitting the defendant to file the written statement on Aug. 7, 1978. It appears that the defendant was determined to prolong the proceedings further. Instead of filing the written statement, her counsel requested the court on Aug. 7, 1978, for further adjournment on the plea that the defendant was desirous of filing a petition of revision in the High Court challenging the dismissal of her application for stay of the suit, ordered on July 18, 1978. The court refused to grant the adjournment, making the observations that the case had been pending for presenting her written statement for a long time and that the defendant's proposal to file a petition of revision in the High Court could not in any manner be hampered or prejudiced by her filing the written statement. It was in these circumstances that the court made the impugned order forfeiting the defendant's right to present the written statement and directing the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of her claim in the suit.
(3.) After hearing both sides and reading the relevant provisions of the Civil P. C. I am of opinion that the defendant-petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference in the impugned order by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C. P. C;