written statement. Subsequently, the Petitioner was set ex-parte on 21st March, 2020. Thereafter, the Plaintiff examined one witness, who was also cross-examined by Defendant Nos.2 to 6. It is his submission that as relevant documents could not be arranged in time and due to outbreak of COVID-19, the Defendant No.1 could not contact his counsel for which written statement could not be filed in time. However, upon arrangement of documents, Defendant No.1 filed a petition along with written statement for setting aside the ex-parte order and to accept the written statement. Learned trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that after taking several adjournments the Defendant No.1 did not file the written statement even after restrictions of COVID-19 was lifted. It was further observed by learned trial Court that since one witness of the Plaintiff has already been examined and cross examined by other defendants, allowing the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC would delay further proceedings of the suit. It is submitted that the grounds on which the petition under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is rejected are not sustainable in law, as it would keep the principal contestant of the suit away from presenting his case. For the ends of justice, the Defendant No.1 should be provided with another opportunity to file the written statement and contest the suit.
