IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.305 of 2011 Date of decision : October 11, 2011 Om Prakash …Petitioner. Versus Roop Ram and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner has filed a suit, for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain immoveable property, against respondent No.1 Roop Ram, impleaded as defendant No.1 and respondent No.2 Kishnu Ram, impleaded as defendant No.2. 2. By 25th October, 2010, only respondent/ defendant No.2 Kishnu had been served and he filed written statement on that date. He also filed counter- claim, which was made part of the written statement, filed by him. Petitioner was supposed to have filed written statement to the counter-claim, within ninety days. Matter was adjourned to 29th November, 2010 for service of the other defendant, i.e. respondent No.1 Roop Ram and presumably also for filing written statement to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the counter-claim. By that date, respondent No.2 filed an application, under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for directing the plaintiff-petitioner to place on record the original agreement, specific performance of which has been sought. That application remained pending till 5th May, 2011. Service of respondent No.1, impleaded as defendant No.1, was also effected only for 5th May, 2011. 3. On 24th February, 2011, plaintiff-petitioner had filed an application, seeking extension of time, for filing written statement to the counter-claim of respondent/ defendant No.2. That application remained pending and was decided on 5th May, 2011, on which date service of defendant No.1 had been effected and also the application of respondent No.2, under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed. 4. By the aforesaid order, application dated 24th February, 2011 of the petitioner, for extending time for filing written statement to the counter-claim, was also rejected. Petitioner has assailed that order, by means of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. No doubt, maximum time, limited by law, for filing written statement is ninety days, unless the same is …3… extended by the Court, on a good cause shown by the defendant. In the present case, petitioner did not file the written statement to the counter-claim within the aforesaid time limit and application dated 24th February, 2011, for extension of time had also been moved after the expiry of the aforesaid ninety days time limit, but the facts and the circumstances of the case suggest that since service of the defendants, in the case, was not complete, inasmuch as defendant No.1 had not been served and application of defendant No.2, for issuance of direction to the petitioner to file the original agreement had been pending and the petitioner was directed to file reply to the said application, delay in filing written statement to the counter-claim occurred. This delay has not caused any prejudice to defendant No.2 and, therefore, trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to file written statement to the counter-claim and respondent No.2 could have been compensated by ordering payment of costs. 7. Consequently, present petition is allowed, impugned order of the trial Court, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, for extension of time, is set aside and the said application is allowed, subject to costs of `1,000/- Petitioner is permitted to file written statement to the counter-claim of respondent/defendant No.2, within 15 days of the appearance of the parties, before the trial …4… Court, provided costs are paid by him, before or simultaneously with the filing of the written statement. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court, on the date already fixed in the main suit, which is stated to be 24th November, 2011. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. October 11, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J