IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1247 of 2009 (M/S) Bhagwati Prasad Sah S/o Late Sri Heera Lal Sah R/o Fine View, Ayarpata Nainital, presently R/o Wazeri Avenue Ombus Sydny, New South Wales Australia, through their registered Power of attorney Holder Maruti Nandan Sah S/o Dwarika Nath Sah R/o 86 Ramsay Road, Tallital Nainital. ……Petitioner. Versus Smt. Tara George W/o Sevestian George R/o Canefield Cottage Ayarpatta, Tallital Nainital. …….Respondent. Shri Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 27.06.2009, passed by revisional court (Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court Ist, Nainital) in S.C.C. Revision No. 20 of 2008, whereby said court has set aside the order dated 19.02.2008, passed by the trial court (J.S.C.C./Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Nainital) in S.C.C. suit No. 07 of 2006, and admitted the written statement 59 A, filed 2 by the defendant/respondent, before the trial court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner is landlord of house known as Canefield Cottage in Nainital. Alleging that the defendant is his tenant, a suit for arrears of rent and eviction, was filed against the defendant, before the Judge Small Cause Court/Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Nainital. It appears that the defendant after service of notice, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint and did not file written statement within time allowed under Rule 1 Order VIII of C.P.C. The written statement was filed only after rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11, was affirmed by the revisional court, and as such, the written statement was highly belated and filed in violation of Rule 1 Order VIII of the Code. 4. Though it cannot be said to be a sufficient ground that the application under Order VII Rule 11 had been moved by the defendant for not filing written statement within time under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. but in the interest of justice, since the written statement filed by the defendant had already been directed to be 3 admitted by the revisional court, this Court is not inclined to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India with the order passed by the revisional court, challenged in this petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that the trial court shall proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted. (Stay application No. 6663 of 2009, also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:04.08.2009 Sweta 4 5 6 7 8 9