The plaintiff has only itself to blame in case where defendant thwarts any prospect of hearing the suit : The High Court of Calcutta

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur IA NO: GA 4 2019 THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED C.S. NO.293 OF 2002 vs SUDHIR SATNALIWALA For the plaintiff For the defendant Heard on Mr. Rohit Banerjee Adv. Mr. Paritosh Sinha Adv. Ms. Shrayashee Das Adv. Mr. Jishnujit Roy Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra Adv. Mr. Dipak Dey Adv. Ms. Swapna Mitra Adv. 27.09.2021 28.09.2021 Judgment on 04.10.2021 Ravi Krishan Kapur J.: 1. This application is filed by the defendant for further and better particulars with an alternative prayer for extension of time to file the written statement. 2. In or about June 2002 the plaintiff filed this suit praying inter alia for a money decree of approximately Rs.65 lakhs along with interest against the defendant. The cause of action as pleaded in the plaint arises out of defaults committed by the defendant in complying with his obligation as a member of the plaintiff Stock Exchange and for non fulfilment of his obligation towards settlement of his accounts being maintained with the plaintiff. 3. The suit was filed in June 2002. On 3 July 2002 the plaint was presented before this Hon’ble Court. A copy of the plaint was served on defendant on 7 October 2002. On 8 April 2003 an application was filed by the defendant whereby the time to file the Written statement was extended by a period of six weeks. The original time period for filing the written statement expired on 20 May 2003. On 9 September 2011 there was a change in the Advocate on record on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter on 30 October 2017 the present Advocate on Record on behalf of the plaintiff was appointed. In May 2018 the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the name of the plaintiff. On 18 May 2018 the order of amendment was passed effecting the change of name of the plaintiff. On 23 June 2018 the amended plaint was served on the defendant. On 18 July 2018 the defendant prayed for leave to file Vakalatnama which was granted on 29 August 2018 and the defendant was also granted 4 weeks time to file his written statement. On 29.09.2018 the stipulated time period for filing of the written statement expired. On 4 December 2018 the suit was dismissed for default due to non appearance of plaintiff. On 20 December 2018 the order of dismissal of the suit was recalled and further 3 weeks time period was granted to the defendant to file the written statement. On 23 January 2019 the time period to file the written statement expired. Thereafter on 24 January 2019 the defendant filed the instant application seeking for further and better particulars and alternatively praying for extension of time to file his written statement. In the said application the parties filed their respective pleadings. The matter thereafter had appeared on 23 September 2021 at the instance of the Department. Significantly neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have made any effort to have this application listed for hearing. 4. At the hearing of this application it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the written statement was ready and the same be taken on record. On behalf of the plaintiff it was submitted that there has been undue and inordinate delay on the part of the defendant. 5. Notwithstanding a lapse of nearly two decades the defendant has not even completed his pleadings. There has been a change of three Advocates on behalf of the plaintiff. As far as the defendant is concerned the defendant has successfully managed to abuse the process of the Court and avoid any chance of having this suit heard for nearly two decades. 6. This application is a third attempt to obtain extension for time to file the written statement. The application as framed is one for better and further particulars but the defendant does not even press this prayer at the hearing of the application. It is unfortunate that the parties have been unable to activate this suit for hearing for nearly more than two decades. This is another example where a party defendant deliberately intentionally mischievously thwarts any prospect of the hearing of the suit. And of course if the defendant has been scheming then the plaintiff has only itself to blame for the appalling state of affairs. 7. In view of the fact that the defendant has prepared the written statement and prays for liberty to file the same and keeping in mind the adversarial nature of litigation which our encourages the time to file the written statement is extended peremptorily by a period of 1 week from the reopening of the ensuing Puja Vacation upon payment of costs assessed at Rs.5 lakhs payable to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund West Bengal within a period of 2 weeks from the date of this judgment. The Registrar Original Side High Court Calcutta is directed to ensure compliance with this direction for payment of costs. In default the plaintiff will be entitled to proceed ex parte. After payment of costs documents should be discovered within 4 weeks from date Inspection forthwith thereupon. Upon completion of the formalities the plaintiff will be at liberty to pray for early listing of the suit. 8. In view of the aforesaid IA No.GA 19is 9. Urgent certified photostate copy of this judgment if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. disposed of. Ravi Krishan Kapur J.) 

Summary: In the case where a party defendant deliberately, intentionally, mischievously thwarts any prospect of the hearing of the suit, the plaintiff has only himself to blame for the appalling state of affairs. In the case of The Calcutta Stock Exchange Limited v. Sudhir Satnaliwala[CS/293/2002 &amp; CS/GA/4/2019] led by the bench of Mr Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur in the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta. An application is filed by the defendant for further and better particulars with alternative prayer for extension of time to file the written statement. On 3 July 2002, the plaint was presented before this Hon’ble Court. A copy of the plaint was served on the defendant on 7 October 2002. On 8 April 2003, an application was filed by the defendant whereby the time to file the Written Statement was extended by a period of six weeks. The original time period for filing the written statement expired. Thereafter, on 30 October 2017, the present Advocate-on-Record on behalf of the plaintiff was appointed. In May 2018 the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the name of the plaintiff. On 23 June 2018, the amended plaint was served on the defendant. On 18 July 2018, the defendant prayed for leave to file Vakalatnama which was granted on 29 August 2018 and the defendant was also granted 4 weeks’ time to file his written statement. On 29.09.2018 the stipulated time period for filing of the written statement expired. On 4 December 2018, the suit was dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff. On 20 December 2018, the order of dismissal of the suit was recalled and a further weeks’ time period was granted to the defendant to file the written statement. On 23 January 2019, the time period to file the 3 written statements expired. Thereafter, on 24 January 2019, the defendant filed the instant application seeking further and better particulars and alternatively praying for an extension of time to file his written statement. In the said application the parties filed their respective pleadings. The matter thereafter had appeared on 23 September 2021 at the instance of the Department. Significantly, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has made any effort to have this application listed for hearing. it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the written statement was ready and the same be taken on record. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was submitted that there has been an undue and inordinate delay on the part of the defendant. The High Court of Calcutta directed “this is another case where a party defendant deliberately, intentionally, mischievously thwarts any prospect of the hearing of the suit. And of course, if the defendant has been scheming then the plaintiff has only itself to blame for the appalling state of affairs.”