Anita v. Turmal and Anr

10 CPC was allowed and 30 days' time was granted to the petitioner to file the written statement. The said written statement was filed after delay of 11 days along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was stated in the application by the petitioner that the written statement could not be filed within 30 days as the petitioner had obtained the certified copy of the impugned order dated 12^*^ March, 2013 which took some time and due to bonafide mistakes, the written statement could not be filed within the period of 30 days. The learned trial court while dismissing the application has given the main reason that since the petitioner could not file the written statement in the specific time of 30 days time which was given to the petitioner and there was delay of 11 days, the application of the 2013:DHC:7407 petitioner could not be allowed and the written statement filed by the petitioner was not on record and the defence was struck off. Having heard both the parties, I am of the view that no doubt there is a delay of 11 days however the said delay is unintentional as he had received the certified copy which took some time to file the written statement and the delay happened. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the written statement filed by the petitioner (defendant No.2 in suit) be taken on record, subject to cost of ^2000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiffwithin four weeks from today. The impugned ^ order in this regard is set aside. The petition as well as pending application are disposed of MANMOHAN SINGH, H OCTOBER 23, 2013 \