RAJ KUMAR SETHIA AND ORS. Vs. TEJ KARAN SETHIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Mr. VK Jindal, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. QB Lamare, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) BY this revision petition, the petitioners, who are the defendants No. 5, 25 & 37 in Title Suit No. 2(H) of 2011, are assailing the three orders i.e. orders dated 24.03.2014, 16.05.2014 and 18.08.2014 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong. At the very outset of hearing of the present revision petition, Mr. VK Kindal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs strenuously contended that the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold inasmuch as by a single revision petition, three impugned orders cannot be challenged. It is also his further submission that serious allegation had been made against the conducting counsel of the respondents i.e. plaintiffs in the civil suit and also their counsel appearing on their behalf in the trial court. In support of this contention, Mr. VK Jindal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs had drawn the attention of this Court to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners in the present revision petition. Para 12 b, c & d read as follows: - -

(3.) MR . VK Jindal, learned senior counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that sufficient time had been given to the present petitioners i.e. defendants No. 5, 25 & 37 for filing their written statements. By drawing the attention of this Court to Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC contended that the maximum permissible period for filing written statement is 90 days. However, it is now fairly settled that for an exceptional reason, the maximum limit for filing written statement mentioned in Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC can be extended. This settled proposition of law is not disputed by Mr. VK Jindal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. However, there is no exceptional reason for extending the maximum limit of 90 days mentioned in Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC in the present case according to Mr. VK Jindal, learned senior counsel. Keeping in view of the submissions of learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs and Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. defendants No. 5, 25 & 37, this Court had carefully perused the copy of the order sheets which had been annexed in the present revision petition. On careful perusal of the order sheets, it appears that sufficient time had been granted to the petitioners/defendants by the trial court for filing their written statements. This Court put questions to the parties as to the stage of the said civil suit before the trial court. Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly submitted that the stage of the said civil suit is at the stage of settlement of issues. Therefore, it appears that the said civil suit is not at the very advanced stage. Over and above, because of certain lapses on the part of the petitioners/defendants, their right to file the written statements in the said civil suit is curtailed a serious irreparable loss shall cause to the present petitioners/defendants. In other words, their right to put up their case for effective decision of the said civil suit is to be stalled, if they are not allowed to file their written statements. In order to strike the balance between the parties and for the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered view that one more last chance should be given to the present petitioners i.e. defendants No. 5, 25 & 37 to file their written statements. As considerable delay had been caused in disposal of the said suit case for non -filing of the written statements by the present petitioners i.e. defendants No. 5, 25 & 37, this Court is of the considered view that such considerable delay caused by the petitioners/defendants in disposing of the said suit case is required to be compensated by the present petitioners/defendants to the respondents/plaintiffs.