Full Text
01st October, 2014 DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ......Petitioner
Through: Ms.Renuka Arora, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Himanshu Gupta, Advocate for DDA.
Mr.Arun Bhandari, Advocate for GNCTD.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant no.5 challenges the impugned order of the trial court dated 08.8.2012 refusing to take the written statement of the petitioner/defendant no.5 on record by not extending the time.
2. The written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant no.5 on 01.5.2012 and which is so recorded in the order dated 01.5.2012. 2014:DHC:5193
3. Suit was filed on 02.11.2011 and the petitioner/defendant no.5 appeared on 12.11.2011. There is really therefore a delay of just about 2-3 months in filing of the written statement, and consequently the delay is not such a large delay for time not to be extended for filing of the written statement.
4. The subject suit is a suit for injunction with respect to a valuable immovable property being property bearing no.E-4, Vinay Enclave, Prem Nagar-III, Delhi – 86, and therefore once the suit is concerned with valuable rights and the delay in filing the written statement is not extraordinary, the trial court has erred in refusing to take the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant no.5 on record.
5. It is now settled law in view of the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that time fixed of 90 days plus 30 days in filing of the written statement is a directory, and not a mandatory, period.
6. In view of the above, impugned order dated 08.8.2012 is set aside and the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant no.5 will be taken as part of the record.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 01, 2014 KA