Allowed

Sanjiv K. Gupta v. Sri Manepally Ramarao And Another

Telangana HC7 Dec 2021CRP/651/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to receive a written statement filed beyond 90 days. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the Order-VIII Rule-1 CPC is directory not mandatory in non-commercial courts, and the order impugned was liable to be set aside to enable the receipt of the written statement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.01.2020 in IA No.694 of 2019 is set aside; the lower court is directed to receive the written statement.

Sanjiv K. Gupta Vs Sri Manepally Ramarao And Another — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 651 OF 2020

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 0710112020 in 1.A.No.694 of 2019 in O.S.No.577 ot 2016 on the file of the Court of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sanjiv K. Gupta, S/o. Sri P,C. Gupta, Aged about 47^years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No,207, (w,C.H. No. 6-3-713/A/207,2nd Floor, Sapphire Complex, Amrutha Hills, Punjagutta, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.1

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri Manepally Ramarao, S/o. Late l,4anepally Subbaiah, Aged About 65^years, Occ. Retired. R/o. Plot Nos.6 and 7, Krishna Sai Nilayam, Amaravathi Colony, Karkhana, Secunderabad, Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶13

M/s. Country Club Hospitality and Holiday Limited, A registered company under the Companies Act, Rep., by its Authorized^person Sri K.Bhanu Murthy. Office^at Begumpet, Hyderabad, Which is formely known as M/s. Amrutha Estates.

¶14

.,.RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT^NO.1

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be pleased to grant stay of all further} proceedings in O.S.No.577 of 2016 on the file of the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{M. V. DURGA PRASAD}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : SRI G. TIRUPATHI REDDY}

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

(

¶21

l/t/ V, /

¶22

TI{E HON' iLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWAITA REDDY

¶23

P.No.6 I of2020

¶24

ORDIR:

¶25

The petirioner/first defendant has filed this Civil Revision petition assailing the on er dated 07 .01 .2020 in IA No.694 o1-20 I 9 in OS No.577 ol 2016 passed by he learned XXI Junior Civil .ludge. Ilrderabati.

¶26

Thc flrsr def'endant has llletl rhe application tr,s. l-5 I of. the, Cir, il Procedure cod, in lA N,.694 ol' 20 r9 t. rcce iv's his ii r.itrcn stiltc*e nt. n'hich was file< bey'ond 90 davs rrum the tratc ol'sc^ icc .t sur,rlons. rn his alfidavit. fi1, d in support of the pctition. ir is srarcd that the oricinar suit is filed fbr perl etual injunction r.rith lalsc allegati.ns and he has illed a detailed counter in IA No.53 ol 2016 fbr rcnrporarr injunction and alscr filed an applicar ion for rejection of the plaint in IA No.4r l of 2019 under order-vll, Rule 'l I cPC and that apprication was dismisseti by the court below. After dis nissal of that application, he has filed the written statemenr on25.11.2019,1 ut the court below has directed him to file it along with an application see'.ing perrnission to receive the rvritten statement and accordingly file l. However. the coun belorv aftcr elaborate discussion about the riva contentions disntissed the applieation tilccl b1, rhc pctitioner/lirst d:f'endant *ith an obserrari.n that hc has flled orclcr-VII. Itule-l I cPC pe iti.n onlv to crrag on rhe proceecrinus a'tr aricr trisnrissal .r' that application rn 05.9.20r9 this apprication is rilcd hcronrl rrru pcriod .r' 90 rlar s.

¶27

'the origi ral suit is tiled lbr perpctual inju.crion iLl.ng ri,ith an application for t( mporary injunction. vide rA No.33 of 20 16.^-r'he peritioner

¶28

¶29

¶30

ide f_endant^{has fired an appricationro roject the praint, vide IA No.4i I of} 2019^{and that applicationwas dismissed by the Court belorv on 05'11'2019'} I'hereafter,^{he has filed his rvritten statement A copy of writtenstatement is} also filed^{atong withthe presentreYision petition in proof of thesame'}

¶31

The leamed^{counselfor the petitioner/defendant seeksto submit that} the^{provisions of Order-Vlll' Ruie-iCPC are not mandatoryand they are} directory.^{They did not take away the right of the defendantto file the} written^{statement'The delendantin all fairness has been contestingthe suit} and flled^{an applicationtbr rejection o1'the plaint and immediatelyafter} disrnissal^{ol that application' he has tllecl the present applicationon the} aclvicc^{ol'the(ottrt to rcccive lris \rirten statelncnt and that the written} statcurert^{is readl . .l-r.rc srrrc ura,r. bc acceptcd.orher*'isethe revision} pctitioncr"^{dcf'cntlant s ottld st'tllcr irreparablc loss and injun '}

¶32

In supporr^{of his contention'the learned counselfor the revision} petitioner/defendant^{relied on the tbllowingdecisions:}

¶33

R'N' Jadi^{& Brothers and others v' Subhashchandrat; arrd}

¶34

i) ii) Shorai^{Singh v' Charan Singhz '}

¶35

lt is true^{thatthe defendantfailedto filethe writtenstatement within} 90 days^{from the date of receiptof summons' buthe has filedIA No'411 of} 2019 to^{reject the plaint and that applicationwas dismissedon 05'l l'2019'} 'fhereaficr' he has llled the^{writlenstatement Whenhe r'r'assubmittingthe} *as adrisetl^{b1 thc coun unless it is}

¶36

written statcrrc.t.^{it .llpcars} 'c

¶37

¶38

1 (2007 ) 6 scc.llo 2 Civil ,\PPeal No 6l0l ol-l 0l^{I . dt.08.I 0.1021 ol supremeCoutt}

¶39

¶40

¶41

accompanied by the petition seeking permission. it cannot be accepted. hence the present application is filed in IA No.694 of20 t9.

¶42

The Hon'l le Supreme Court in Kaitash v. Ntnhku & Orrarsr. rvhile dealing rvith the )rder-VlII. Rule- l ol' CIrC he ld thar ther, :rrc direcrorl il' the reasons lor r elayed tiling ot'\rinen statcrnent rrith thc satisf'actorv explanation. Suc' rvritten statemenl has to be acccptc(I.

¶43

A 3-.iudge lench ol'llon'blc Supre rnc Court in R.,. Jutli & Brothus (l'' supra) lirllolr:d the principlcs laid rtr /(ailcri's clsc (.i,.i sLrpral rlhilc interpreting the p oviso to Rulc- I Order-VIIt ol'Cl,C hcld thrt Order-Vlll Rule- l and provir o thereto of CPC is directory and ther do not take aw.ay the power of the 'lourt to take the written statement on record though filed beyond 90 days rnd it only cast an obligation on the defendant to file written statement ,vithin the time provided for and accordingly held that rhe object of Order-V II, Rule-l CpC is only ro expedite the hearing and not ro scuttle the same Merely. because a provision of lau, is couched in a negative languag, implying mandatory character. the sa,c is nor * ithout exceptions and th: Couns alrrars htrve tliscretiotrar' pr)\er to cxtencl thc ti,re be'ond 90 dar s. [ 1.* cr cr. il ii.Lrltl hc propcr. ro cr]cor.,raqs rhr. Iitigants to adhere to the tilneline tixcd in lilins lhc rr rirtcrr sr,rcrlsr.lts.

¶44

The llon'b e Suprenrc Court in Shoraj Singh's casc (l',rsrrpra) uhilc relying on Kailast 's case (3"1 supra) and Sorem Advocate Bar As.sociarion, Tamil Nadu v. IJn on of Indiaa held that the perio<l ol 90 da1,s lor lrling ol

¶45

3 lzoosy a scc +so

¶46

o lzoos; o scc :aa

¶47

¶48

¶49

\'r'ittcn staterncnt is tlircctorr '^{I Io$cVcr. tiris provision is mandatory in the} ('ornrncrcial Cortrls Lindcr thc Conrrtle rciiri Courts^{Act' 2015}

¶50

In the^{presentcase.thc original suit is tllcd lor perpetual injunction} before a regular^{Courland thc petitioner/det'endanthas beenagitatinglrom} the time of receipt^{ol the suit summons oither by way of contestingIA} No.53 of 2016,^{which was carriedto this Court, videCRP Nos'801and 802} of 2017 or by^{filingan application under Order-VII Rule11 of CPC,vide} IA No.411 of 2019^{to reject the plaintand immediatelyafter dismissalof} the said IA,^he has^{filedthe written statement.The petitionerhas got every} right to resist the^{suitandhe has filed applicationunderorder-vll Rule-11} CPCtorejectthcsuitatthethresholdandonlyafterdismissalolthe application. he^{has rightli flled this application seeking permissionto} accept the^{urittctt statctrcnttllcd b1 hinl bel'ond 90 dalsThcreis} .jurisdictional^{crror in thc ordcr impugnecl. The Cou( belorv ought to havc} permittcd hinr to tlle^{rvrittenstatelncntwithout looking into the} tcchnicalities to do^substantial .iustice. 'l heretbre. while fbllowing the principles laid down^{b1' thc Hon'bleSupreme Coun in the above said} .ludgments,^{I hold that Lhe order irnpugnedis irregular warrants interlerence} of this Court and^{is liableto be dismissed.}

¶51

I l. In the result, the^{CivilRevisionPetition is allowed'Theorder} impugned dated^{07.01.2020 in IA No.659 of 2019in OS No'577 of 2016} passed by the XXI Junior^{CivilJudge,City Civil Courts at Hyderabad,is} hereby set aside.^{The said lA is allowed. The court belowis directed to} receive the written^{statement ol the petilioner/tlrstdefendantand to proceed} in accordancc^{rvith la\ anrl tbr cxpcditious disposal ol the original suit.}

¶52

¶53

Horvever. there : rall be no^{order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications.if}

¶54

anl pending in tl^{is rer ision pctition shrlll standclosc(l}

SD/-K.ONESIM

ASSISTANl' REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//