Harwinder Singh Aneja @ Tinku vs Brij Mohan and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant No. 2 has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 23.07.2013 Annexure P-1 passed by the trial court thereby striking off defence of defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 due to non-filing of written statement. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the counsel engaged by the petitioner in the trial Court did not inform the petitioner about the proceedings of the suit although the petitioner had supplied all material to the counsel for filing written statement and it was only after change of counsel that the petitioner came to know of the impugned order. In these circumstances, counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for filing written statement.

I have carefully considered the matter. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner appeared in the trial Court on 17.07.2012 but failed to file the written statement for more than a year till the passing of impugned order dated 23.07.2013. The suit is for recovery of heavy amount of Rs. 43,50,000/-. Thus defendant No. 2-petitioner is obviously interested in delaying the disposal of the suit. Even the instant revision petition has not been filed promptly but has been filed more than three months after the passing of the impugned order. In this context, it may be mentioned that according to counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner changed his counsel in the trial Court in end of August 2013 (although not mentioned in the revision petition), but even then, the revision petition was not filed promptly but has been filed at the end of October, 2013, again depicting the intention of the petitioner to delay the proceedings of the suit. There is also no material on record to substantiate the alleged lapse on the part of previous counsel of the petitioner in the trial Court except bare averment by the petitioner.

Having said as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the petitioner for filing written statement but subject to payment of very heavy costs. The petitioner has to be subjected to heavy costs because the suit is for recovery of very heavy amount and also there has been long and inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the written statement in the trial Court and even in filing the instant revision petition.

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice thereof is issued to them. Accordingly, instant revision petition is allowed and trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to file written statement on or before 18.11.2013, the next date of hearing said to be fixed in the trial Court, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- as costs.