RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. CHIEF MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court impugning the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Leh, whereby written statement by the petitioners was not taken on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that suit for recovery was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners having come to know about the same had put in appearance on 27.11.2018 and sought time to file the written statement. The claim made in the suit was for recovery of Rs. 3 crores. It was further submitted that the suit is still pending and no effective proceedings have taken place thereafter. The written statement could not be prepared within 30 days. However, on 31st day, application was filed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for extension of time to file written statement. The learned Court below without appreciating the arguments raised by the petitioners rejected the same. No doubt, the written statement is to be filed within 30 days. However, time could be extended up to 120 days, in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s SCG Contracts India Private Limited v. K. S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and others, 2019 (2) R.C.R (Civil) 249. The maximum period provided is 120 days. Beyond that there could not be any extension of time. As the written statement was filed on 31st day, the same should have been taken on record and suit proceeded further. The object for which the amendments were carried out has not been achieved as the application filed by the petitioners for extension of time to file written statement itself remained pending for more than four months.

(3.) For the view I am taking, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent as the same will further delay the process and defeat the very purpose for which substantive amendments were made in CPC in the Jammu and Kashmir Commercial Courts Act, 2018.