BENCH: D.P.Mohapatro and S.Saghir Ahmad
ISSUE:
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified in passing the decree against the appellants.
FACTS:
1. Respondent No.1, Sunil Madan, filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against the appellants and respondent No.2 for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of property.
2. The suit was filed in May 1996 and summons were issued to the Appellant.
3. In response thereto, they put in appearance before the Court on 20th September, 1996 and prayed for eight weeks' time to file a written statement, which was allowed to them and the suit was adjourned to 22nd of January, 1997.
4. Written Statement was not filed even on that date and an application was filed for further time to file the written statement which was allowed as a last chance and the written statement was directed to be filed by 7th of February, 1997.
5. Since the written statement was still not filed, the Court decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of respondent No.1 under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C.
6. An appeal, which was filed by the appellants, including respondent No.2, thereafter, before the Division Bench was dismissed on 29.4.1998. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed in the Court.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION
The appellants had contended that the High Court was not justified in passing the decree against the appellants, including respondent No.2, for specific performance merely on the ground that written statement was not filed by them on the date fixed for that purpose. It was also contended that the High Court had rejected the application for time to file written statement on the ground that there was a change of counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants which indicates that the attitude adopted by the High Court in decreeing the suit under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. was wholly punitive in nature resulting in serious miscarriage of justice.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 contended that the appellants, including respondent No.2, had adopted dilatory tactics and their intention, from the very beginning, was to delay the disposal of the suit so as to harass respondent No.1
It was also contended that the conduct of the appellants and respondent No.2 was not proper and they were negligent throughout, as they not only did not file the written statement, but also filed an appeal before the Division Bench which also was beyond time.
JUDGEMENT
The suit was decreed by the High Court under Order 8 Rule 10 of C.P.C. and also under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9.
In both the situations, it was observed that if the Written Statement has not been filed by the defendant, it will be open to the Court to pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. The words "against him" are to be found in Rule 10 of Order 9 which obviously means that the judgment will be pronounced against the defendant. These words are of immense significance; in as much as they give discretion to the Court not to pronounce judgment against the defendant and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit.
Join Mr. Virmani for his 24-Hours Live Course on CPC starting from 23rd August.
Flat 66 % discount till 18th August.
Use the following link to join the class - https://lnkd.in/d-CM4uE
Study material and recordings shall be given to all the participants along with the certificates
