IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 229 of 2011. Date of decision: 7.7.2011 Devi Lal ….Petitioner. Versus Sanjay Kumar ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondent: None. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 27th April, 2011 whereby the learned Court below has permitted the defendant to file written statement subject to payment of Rs.200/- as costs, despite the fact that the period of 90 days prescribed by law had expired. 2. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that neither any application was filed nor any reason given for not filing the written statement within the time prescribed by law and, therefore, the Court should not have extended the time. 3. There is no doubt that the learned Trial Court is vested with powers to enlarge the time and to grant more time 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 to the litigants to file the written statement. Normally, an application should have been filed but once the learned Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law, this Court would not normally interfere in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 4. Even otherwise, I am of the considered view that every party should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. The record also reveals that the counsel for the respondent first appeared on 15.9.2010 and sought time on more than two occasions which was granted without any opposition. Thereafter the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was fixed for proper orders. The case was fixed for filing the written statement in the presence of learned counsel for the plaintiff for 27.4.2011. At this stage, no objection was raised that so much time should not be granted to file the written statement. Therefore, if the written statement was filed on 27.4.2011 it was in compliance with the earlier orders. Thus no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly rejected in limine. No costs. 7th July, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.