Krupanidhi Association Petitioner(S) v. Pankaj Pramukhlal Patel & 3 (S)

ORAL ORDER

1. Challenge in this petition is the order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 16, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad below application Exh.58 in Civil Suit No. 2790 of 1995 whereby, application Exh.58 of the respondents - original defendants for permission to file written statement was allowed and accordingly, written statement was taken on record after imposing cost of Rs. 2500/- to be deposited with the Legal Services Authority.

2. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the plaint, are such that the petitioner - original plaintiff is N.T.C, registered under the provisions of Non Trading Corporation Act, has filed suit for specific performance against the original defendants, who are trustees of the defendant No. 1-Trust. The suit was filed in the year 1995 and though defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 served with the summons, they did not file written statement for about 11 years but vide impugned order passed below application Exh.58, the learned trial Judge permitted the defendants to file written statement by relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Bonanza Drugs & Chemicals v. Regional Manager reported in 2009 (2) GLH 586 and also the decision in the case of Shambhaji v. Gangabhai reported in 2008 (15) Scale 522.

3. Learned advocate Mr. P.P Majmudar appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that though the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 are directory in nature, the learned trial Judge ought not to have allowed the application Exh.58 as there is no justification or reasons in the application so as to permit the defendants to file written statement after lapse of 11 years. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar pressed into service the decisions rendered in the case of Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd. v. Navbharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. reported in 2005 (4) GLR 3553, in case of Mohammed Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad reported in (2009) 3 SCC 513 and in the case of Jaswantsinh @ Kali S/o. Sardar Ramsingh Indrasingh v. Indravadan Chhaganlal Thakar reported in 2009 (3) GLR 2513.

4. I have heard submissions of learned advocates appearing for both sides and examined the principles laid down in the cases cited at bar. It appears that one of the trustees i.e defendant No. 3 was served with the summons on 23.03.2011 and, therefore, on this count alone, if the written statement is taken on record, no harm would be caused to any of the parties because the trial has not yet commenced. Further, there is no jurisdictional or apparent error on the face of the order so as to exercise the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and so as to accept the present petition. Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers vested in this Court. In the cases cited by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner, the High Court after examining the facts of each case, came to the conclusion that sufficient and cogent reasons in support of the orders rejecting the application were assigned. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the orders in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and the order passed by the trial Court can be set aside on the limited grounds if it is shown that the order is illegal, irrational or there is any procedural impropriety. In the case on hand, the defendant No. 3 was firstly served with the summons on 23.03.2011 and the defendant No. 3 being one of the trustees of defendant No. 1, written statement would be deemed to have been filed on behalf of the other defendants and, therefore, on this count also, the learned trial Judge has rightly allowed the application Exh. 58.

5. In view of the above, there is no substance in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.