1 Bhanwar Singh Vs. Bhagwan Lal (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4096/10) Dated:- 07.7.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. R.K.Thanvi, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Shah for the respondent. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur whereby the petitioner/defendant's right to file written statement stands closed. 2. In the instant case, while issuing notice of the writ petition to the respondent, this Court vide interim order dated 23.4.2010 directed that the written statement filed by the petitioner may be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- to the plaintiff. It was further observed in the order that it will be open for the plaintiff not to accept the order passed by the Court and contest the writ petition before this Court, however, in that case, further proceedings in the suit pending before the court below shall remain stayed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondent intend to contest the writ petition. Accordingly, the arguments of the parties were heard. 3. The trial court while passing the impugned order observed 2 that the petitioner/defendant was served on 16.4.2009 and even after lapse of about 328 days, the written statement has not been filed. The Court further observed that the written statement should have been filed within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons and the stipulated period could have been further extended upto 90 days, but since the petitioner/defendant has filed to file written statement, therefore, no further opportunity can be granted. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that after service of the summons, the petitioner/defendant put in appearance and filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 and 16 r/w Section 151 CPC which remained pending consideration before trial court and therefore, the petitioner did not file the written statement immediately after service of summons. 5. It is not disputed before this Court that the plaintiff could not produce the documents demanded by the petitioner/defendant by way of an application under Order XI Rule 14, & 16 CPC, for the reason that the same were lost during proceedings before the DRT. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel that the reasons for not filing the written statement within the stipulated period is absolutely bonafide and therefore, the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant deserves to be taken on record. 3 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that inordinate delay in filing the written statement should not be condoned else the very purpose of provision incorporated providing for filing of the written statement within the stipulated period shall stand frustrated. 7. It is true that the written statement was not filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period, but then, the rules of procedure are hand maiden of justice and the same cannot be applied strictly so as to defeat the cause of justice. Admittedly, the matter remained pending for consideration of the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14 and 16 r/w Section 151 CPC before the trial court for all these months. Apparently, the decision of the application was delayed, inasmuch as, the respondent/plaintiff did not file reply to the application and ultimately expressed his inability to produce the documents stating that the same are lost. Be that as it may, the proceedings of the suit has already been delayed and in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant is taken on record so that he may not be deprived from defending the case against him altogether. For the delay caused, the respondent/plaintiff may be compensated by payment of cost by the petitioner/defendant as determined by the Court while passing the interim order dated 23.4.2010. 4 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 9.3.2010, closing the right of the petitioner to file written statement, is quashed. The written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant is directed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff quantified at Rs. 3000/-. (SANGEET LODHA),J. rp/-