1 47 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8107/2007 Municipal Council, Udaipur Vs. Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur & Ors. Date of Order :: 22nd May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan, for the petitioner. Mr. Sabir Khan for Mr. Deepak Menaria, for the respondents Nos.2 to 6 Mr.D.S.Rathore, for the respondent No.7 .... This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2007 (Annex.5) as passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur in Civil Suit No.99/2007 refusing to take on record the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner beyond the period of 90 days. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that there was a delay of 2 days above 90 days in filing the written statement and such delay has been refused to be condoned by the learned Trial Court on the considerations that no any opportunity was sought while assigning reasons for filing written statement beyond the period of 30 days and even at the time of filing the written statement on 12.09.2007 no affidavit was filed stating the cause of delay. It is noticed that the suit in question has been filed claiming compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act by the dependants of the accident victim Gyanchand who is said to 2 have met with his untimely end on 02.07.2006 when his vehicle skidded allegedly due to the negligence and omission of care on the part of the defendants in not providing proper lights and indications at the site of accident while having cut the road for laying of cable and having scattered the construction material on the road. The defendant-petitioner was served with summons on 12.06.2007; and the written statement was filed on 12.09.2007, of course 2 days after 90 days from the date of service of summons, with a prayer to take the same on record. It is also found that another application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 30.10.2007 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement with the submissions that no report or complaint relating to the incident being available in its record, collection of complete information and facts took some time and then, the matter remained pending with the counsel for drafting the written statement leading to a delay of a day or two in filing. In this writ petition notices for final disposal were issued on 10.12.2007 and, while staying operation of the impugned order, the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the matter treating the written statement on record. On the petition being taken up today for final disposal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, in all fairness, submitted that the plaintiffs would not stand ceremonies and the suit may be proceeded while taking the written statement on record. 3 The considerations as adopted in the impugned order refusing to take the written statement on record and the approach of the learned Trial Court as if the rules of procedure are intended to punish the parties for every mistake committed by them during the course of a civil litigation are difficult to be appreciated. In this suit for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, delay in filing the written statement could have definitely been condoned without causing any prejudice to the opposite party, particularly where the written statement was being submitted on behalf of a local body, i.e., the Municipal Council and even on counting, it were a delay of a day or two; and when the defendant forthrightly pointed out the reasons for delay. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has rightly chosen his stand not to oppose this writ petition. It is to be imbibed that the rules of procedure are basically intended to sub-serve the cause of justice and not for punishment of the parties for every mistake committed during the course of trial of a civil suit. The impugned order dated 31.10.2007 is set aside and the written statement already filed is ordered to be taken on record. There shall be no orders as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni