Dismissed

Kalipada Das v. Pinki Bhowmik Debnath and Ors.

Tripura HC4 Jan 2016CRP/145/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Tripura dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's rejection of a defendant's belated written statement. The court held the challenge lacked merit as the defendant failed to provide valid reasons, supporting documents, or a proper application for condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the rejection of the written statement was dismissed.

Kalipada Das Vs Pinki Bhowmik Debnath and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Tripura HC (2016)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

CRP 145 of 2015

¶3

Sri Kalipada Das, S/o. Lt. Harendra Kr. Das, Resident of Village Sukantanagar, K.N. Road, PS. & Sub. Division – Kumarghat, District Unakoti, Tripura, PIN – 799264.

¶4

……..… The Principal Defendant-Petitioner

¶5

- Vs. –

¶6

Smti Pinaki Bhowmik (Debnath), W/O. Sri Biswajit Debnath of

¶7

Village – Sukantapalli (Darchai Road),

¶8

P.S. Kumarghat, District – Unakoti Tripura.

¶9

……..… Plaintiff -Respondent

¶10

Sri Surajit Dey,

¶11

S/o. Sri Sudhangshu Dey of Village – Nidevi, PS & Sub-Division – Kumarghat, District – Unakoti Tripura, PIN – 799264.

¶12

Sri Karna Das, S/o. Lt. Harendra Kumar Das of Village Sukantanagar, K.N. Road, PS & Sub-Division – Kumarghat, District Unakoti, Tripura. PIN – 799264.

¶13

……..… Proforma Defendant-Respondents

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate.

¶17

Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.

¶18

Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

¶19

For the respondents : None.

¶20

Date of hearing & : 04.01.2016. delivery of Judgment & order Whether fit for : No. Reporting

¶21

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶22

By means of this petition, the petitioner, who is a defendant in the trial Court has challenged the orders dated 30.06.2015 and 16.10.2015 whereby, the written statement filed by the defendant has not been taken on record.

¶23

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner, who was defendant in the trial Court, was served prior to 18.02.2015 because she put in appearance through her counsel before the trial Court on the said date. The date of service is not clear but for the purpose of this petition it may be presumed that she was served on 17.02.2015 which would meant that the written statement should have been filed latest by 18.05.2015 even if the maximum period of 90 days as prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure is taken into consideration.

¶24

The petitioner-defendant appeared before the Court on 18.02.2015 and prayed for time and time was granted till 20.03.2015 to file written statement. Again on 20.03.2015, a request for adjournment was made and it was prayed that further time be granted to file written statement since all the documents could not be prepared. The Court again granted time up to 05.05.2015. On the said date, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was taken up by another Presiding Officer and time for filing the written statement was extended up to

¶25

CRP 145 of 2015 Page 2 of 5

¶26

19.05.2015. On 19.05.2015 when the written statement was not filed the learned trial Court rejected the prayer for grant of further time and fixed the matter for 30.06.2015. On this date written statement was filed but without any application for extending the time and this written statement was not taken on record since that had been filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days.

¶27

It is well settled law that no written statement can be permitted to be filed after ninety days. Under Order VIII Rule 1, the written statement is supposed to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of summons. However, the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 lays down that the defendant may be allowed further time to file the same by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. Therefore, the order now prescribes an outer limit of ninety days. It is true that the Courts have repeatedly held that this provision i.e. Order VIII Rule 1 does not take away the inherent powers of the Court to extend the period of time beyond ninety days. However, that can be done only if there are adequate and valid reasons given for the same. When the written statement was filed on 30.06.2015, the defendant did not even care to file an application along with the written statement setting out the reasons why she should be granted further time. This Court would have been inclined to grant further time to the defendant if she had been vigilant and even thereafter

¶28

CRP 145 of 2015 Page 3 of 5

¶29

within a day or two filed such an application. The case was adjourned from 30.06.2015 to 01.08.2015 but no steps were taken by the defendant to file any application. The excuse given is that the regular Presiding Officer was on leave even when the regular Presiding Officer is on leave nothing prevents the party for filing an application. No application was filed either on 01.08.2015 or 11.09.2015. An application was filed on the next date i.e. 16.10.2015 and the application reads as follows:-

¶30

“IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, Jr. Division, UNAKOTI JUDICIAL DISTRICT : KAILASHAHAR.

¶31

T.S.-01/2015.

¶32

SMT. PINKY BHOWMIK (DEBNATH),

¶33

………… PLAINTIFF. - V/S – - SRI KALIPADA DAS & OTHERS, ……………. DEFENDANTS.

¶34

It is submitted on behalf of the Defendant No.-1, Sri Kalipada Das, as under:-

¶35

(1) That, the Defendant submitted his Written Statement on 30-06-2015, but that was submitted after 90 days from receipt of summons. Hon’ble Court pleased enough to did not accept the Written Statement submitted by the Defendant.

¶36

(2) That, the Defendant, Sri Kalipada Das was suffering from illness and due to this illness he was not able to submit the Written Statement in due time.

¶37

(3) That, the Defendant is willing to contest the suit, he has no negligence on his part for not to submit the Written Statement within time, if he was not suffering from illness he would have submit the Written Statement in due time.

¶38

Therefore; it is prayed that your Honour would be pleased enough to condone the delay and accept the Written Statement submitted by the Defendant

¶39

CRP 145 of 2015 Page 4 of 5

¶40

and for which act of kindness; your humble Petitioner shall ever pray.”

¶41

This application, which has been quoted above, is an apology in the name of application. It does not give any reason whatsoever. All that is stated is that the defendant Kalipada Das was suffering from illness and due to illness he was not able to submit written statement. No documents in support of his illness have been placed on record. This application is not even accompanied by affidavit and therefore, I am clearly of the view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application.

¶42

It has been contended that the Rules of Procedure are not meant to thought justice. That may be true but Rules of procedure cannot be thrown to the winds. A person who is appearing before the Court must show some valid ground why he or she should be granted some discretionary relief. Such relief cannot be granted only for the asking.

¶43

I, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶44

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶45

sima

¶46

CRP 145 of 2015 Page 5 of 5

Kalipada Das v. Pinki Bhowmik Debnath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalipada Das v. Pinki Bhowmik Debnath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malati Das Vs Kiran Ch. Basak

Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna Bhattacharjee and Ors.

Jharna SAHAand Ors. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Mahinta Tripura Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Anal Roy Choudhury Vs Madhab Saha

Rajendrajit Debbarma Vs Sandeep Debbarma