Allowed

M/S Ishwar Road Resurfacing Co.Pvt. Ltd. v. Urban Improvement Trust

Rajasthan HC13 Jan 2025CW/11883/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ petition challenging the commercial court's dismissal of an application to withdraw a late written statement. Acknowledging the written statement was filed beyond the 120-day limit, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the record's correction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the trial court is set aside and the written statement filed by the respondents is taken out of the record.

M/S Ishwar Road Resurfacing Co.Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1503]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11883/2020

¶4

M/s Ishwar Road Resurfacing Co.pvt. Ltd., Office At E-251, 1St Floor East Of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065 Through Its Director Mr. V.d. Narang

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Urban Improvement Trust, Near Cad Circle, Kota, Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary

¶8

The Executive Engineer -Ii, Urban Improvement Trust, Near Cad Circle, Kota, Rajasthan

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Satya Narayan Kumawat

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/01/2025

¶14

This civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Commercial Court, Korai in civil suit No. 44/2018 titled as “M/s Ishwar Road Resurfacing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota and Ors.”, whereby the said court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of Rs. 6,92,52,615/- against the defendants-respondents (for short ‘the defendants’) in which defendants appeared before the trial Court through their counsel on 07.03.2018 and the matter was

[2025:RJ-JP:1503]

[CW-11883/2020]

(2 of 3)

posted for filing the written statement of the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that defendants had not filed the written statement within a stipulated period of 120 days. They had filed written statement on 22.01.2019. That was beyond limitation for filing the written statement.

¶20

Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the trial Court for taking out the written statement from the record, but the trial court vide order dated 17.02.2020 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the trial Court be set aside.

¶21

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (I) Overseas Enterprises Thorugh Its Partners/Co-owners Vs. Parbatram Purohit and Anr. in civil writ petition No. 14247/2021 decided on 28.04.2022 , (II) SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. in civil appeal No. 1638/2019 decided on 12.02.2019 and (III) Itarsi Pipes Sales and Ors. Vs. OMRF Pipes and Products and Ors. in Misc. Petition No. 6405/2023 decided on 29.01.2024 .

¶22

Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the defendants filed an application raised objection before the trial Court. That objection raised by the defendants were pending and subsequently suit was transferred to Commercial Court, Kota. So, written statement filed by the defendants was within time. So, trial Court had not committed any

¶23

(3 of 3) [CW-11883/2020]

¶24

[2025:RJ-JP:1503]

¶25

error in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff. So, present writ petition filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Prakash Corporates Vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited in civil appeal No. 1318/2022 decided on 14.02.2022 and (2) SMS Paryavaran J V Vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota in civil writ petition Nos. 11461/2016 and 11462/2016 decided on 30.08.2016 .

¶27

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶28

It is an admitted position that the maximum permissible period for filing the written statement in Commercial Court proceedings is 120 days. It is also an admitted position that the defendants filed the written statement beyond the maximum period provided under the law. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed error in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the petition filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, the petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the trial court is set aside and the written statement filed by the defendants is taken out of the record.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶31

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶32

Tahir/72

M/S Ishwar Road Resurfacing Co.Pvt. Ltd. v. Urban Improvement Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ishwar Road Resurfacing Co.Pvt. Ltd. v. Urban Improvement Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandir Shri Raghav Ji Virajman Vs Banwarilal Maheshwari S/O Shri Sohanlal Maheshwari

Mange Lal and Ors. Vs Civil Judge J D and Ors.

Narendra Kumar Vs Dhruv Narayan Purohit and Anr.

Kamlesh Devi Wife of Late Kailash Chand Vs General Manager

Babu Khan Son of Ilahi Baksh Vs Aas Mohammed Son of Mullan Khan

Rajiv Garg Vs Krishan Chand Dagal Andanr