Arvind Kumar Vs Amitesh Shah and Others

“That orders dated 18-11-2023 and 3-04-2024 being irregular be set aside and direction be issued to hear the application of the petitioner for extension of time filed along with the written statement in view of the facts and circumstances in the interest of justice.”

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶18

documents appended along with present petition.

¶19

The present petition is defendant No.1 before the trial Court. On 18.11.2023, the plaintiff before the trial Court (respondent

¶20

No.1) was granted an opportunity to file replication to the written

¶21

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶22

2

¶23

( 2025:HHC:8798 )

¶24

statement filed on behalf of defendants No.2 and 3. Insofar as defendant No.4 (respondent No.4) is concerned, time was granted to the said party to file written statement.

¶25

Insofar as defendant No.1, i.e., present petitioner is concerned, in the impugned order dated 18.11.2023, it has been stated that the defence of the present petitioner is struck off as no application has been placed on record seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement on behalf of the present petitioner before the trial Court.

¶26

However, from a perusal of the record appended along with present petition, specifically Annexure P-2, it is evident that an application under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code for extension of time to file written statement and reply was filed on behalf of the present petitioner before the trial Court. From the endorsement made upon the said application, it is evident that a copy of the said application had been received on 18.11.2023. The said application is also dated 18.11.2023. Interestingly, rather than taking the application for consideration on 18.11.2023, the same was ordered to be put up on 03.04.2024.

¶27

Hence, to the extent order dated 18.11.2023 records that no application seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement on behalf of the present petitioner (defendant No.1) was filed, is actually incorrect. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 03.04.2024.

¶28

3

¶29

( 2025:HHC:8798 )

¶30

On the said date, application filed by the present petitioner seeking enlargement of time along with written statement presented by the present petitioner were both returned back on the ground that the defence of the present petitioner had been struck off vide the previous order dated 18.11.2023. Besides the aforesaid, vide order dated 03.04.2024, time was granted to respondent No.4 (defendant No.4) for filing written statement.

¶31

From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstance of the case at hand, it is evident that till 03.04.2024, written statement on behalf of all the defendants had not been filed. Besides the aforesaid, on 18.11.2023, rather than taking up the application for extension of time filed on behalf of the present petitioner (defendant No.1), the same was listed for 03.04.2024, i.e., next date of hearing.

¶32

A perusal of the application filed on 18.11.2023 seeking extension of time for filing of written statement on behalf of the present petitioner (defendant No.1) reflects that sufficient cause/ bonafide reason was stated in the application for seeking extension of time in filing the written statement. Had the same been considered on 18.11.2023, the trial Court in either accepting or rejecting the same, would have been required to pass a reasoned order. Non consideration of the application filed for seeking an extension of time in filing written statement on behalf of present petitioner (defendant No.1) reflects a non exercise of jurisdiction. The failure to exercise

¶33

4

¶34

( 2025:HHC:8798 )

¶35

jurisdiction by deferring the application for the next date, i.e., 03.04.2024 has caused grave prejudice to the present petitioner (defendant No.1).

¶36

The Courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. The Courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law.

¶37

For the aforesaid reasons and the fact that the proceedings are at a stage where written statement was still to be filed by respondent No.4 (defendant No.4), therefore, present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 18.11.2023 and 03.04.2024 are quashed and set aside.

¶38

The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 16.04.2025 , on which date, written statement shall be filed by the present petitioner (defendant No.1). It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the present petitioner (defendant No.1).

¶39

In view of the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶40

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶41

April 02, 2025 (KS)

Arvind Kumar v. Amitesh Shah and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. Amitesh Shah and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Vs Putli Devi (Deceased through LRs Kumar Singh and Others)

Rajinder Kumar Vs Ravinder Kumar and Another

Mahinder Singh Vs M/S Shree Balaji Jewellers and Anr.

Nand Lal Vs Hrtc and Others

The Chief Executive Officer Hspl Vs Krishan Lal and Others

Rajvinder Singh Vs Hrtc and Another