Full Text
Translation output
f ' $--22 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 453/2013
BANK OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Jitendra Kumar, Advocate.
FAO(OS) 453/2013
BANK OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Jitendra Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
SUMAN LAIA&ANR Respondents
Through; Mr PrabhjitKumar &Ms Anupama Kaul, Advocates
Through; Mr PrabhjitKumar &Ms Anupama Kaul, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
08.10.2013 CM No.15960/2013 (Exemption)
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
08.10.2013 CM No.15960/2013 (Exemption)
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) 453/2013
This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in lA No.13326/2013 and lA No.13327/2013 in
CS(OS) No.1290/2012. lA No.13326/2013 was an application for taking on record the written statement on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.l. lA
No.13327/2013 was an appHcation seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The learned Single Judge, by virtue ofthe impugned oidei dated 26.08.2013, has not condoned the delay in filing the written statement as the same was unexplained. As a consequence both the applications were dismissed.
We find that the respondents had filed the suit in which the appellant/defendant no.l had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on
2013:DHC:6979-DB f 10.07.2012. From the order dated 06.12.2012 it is apparent that the learned
Single Judge while dealing with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 has noted categorically that the defendant no.1 had not filed tile written statement despite opportunities. Consequently, the learned Singld!Judge, by virtue ofthe order dated 06.12.2012 closed the right of defendant iio.l to file a written statement.
Thereafter, the appellant's/defendant no.l's application under Order 7
Rule 11 was taken up for hearing on 16.04.2013 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with costs of^20,000/-.
After dismissal of the Order 7 Rule 11 application, on 30.05.2013 the appellant/defendant no.l filed two applications being lA No.10013/2013
(for condonation of delay) and lA No.10014/2013 (for taking the written statement on record).
These lAs were listed before the learned Single Judge on 01.07.2013 when the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.l withdrew the same, on account ofthe fact that no prayer had been made for recall of the order dated 06.12.2012, with liberty to file fresh application.
The liberty had been granted and, consequently, the appellant/defendant filed the lA Nos. 13326/2013 and 13327/2013 on or about 21-22.08.2013.
Those applications came up for hearing on 26.08.2013 and were dismissed by the impugned order of the same date.
It is apparent from the above sequence of events that there was inordinate delay in filing of the written statement. After the right to file the written statement was closed the appellant/defendant no.l did not file any appeal or application for recall of the said order till 30.05.2013. Even after the withdrawal of the applications on 01.07.2013, there was a ftirther delay of almost two months before the appellant/defendant no.l filed the said applications being lA Nos. 13326/2013 and 13327/2013.
The observation of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the delay is unexplained cannot be faulted. Consequently, no cas^ has. been made out for interference with the impugned order. , '
The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 08, 2013
MK
This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in lA No.13326/2013 and lA No.13327/2013 in
CS(OS) No.1290/2012. lA No.13326/2013 was an application for taking on record the written statement on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.l. lA
No.13327/2013 was an appHcation seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The learned Single Judge, by virtue ofthe impugned oidei dated 26.08.2013, has not condoned the delay in filing the written statement as the same was unexplained. As a consequence both the applications were dismissed.
We find that the respondents had filed the suit in which the appellant/defendant no.l had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on
2013:DHC:6979-DB f 10.07.2012. From the order dated 06.12.2012 it is apparent that the learned
Single Judge while dealing with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 has noted categorically that the defendant no.1 had not filed tile written statement despite opportunities. Consequently, the learned Singld!Judge, by virtue ofthe order dated 06.12.2012 closed the right of defendant iio.l to file a written statement.
Thereafter, the appellant's/defendant no.l's application under Order 7
Rule 11 was taken up for hearing on 16.04.2013 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with costs of^20,000/-.
After dismissal of the Order 7 Rule 11 application, on 30.05.2013 the appellant/defendant no.l filed two applications being lA No.10013/2013
(for condonation of delay) and lA No.10014/2013 (for taking the written statement on record).
These lAs were listed before the learned Single Judge on 01.07.2013 when the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.l withdrew the same, on account ofthe fact that no prayer had been made for recall of the order dated 06.12.2012, with liberty to file fresh application.
The liberty had been granted and, consequently, the appellant/defendant filed the lA Nos. 13326/2013 and 13327/2013 on or about 21-22.08.2013.
Those applications came up for hearing on 26.08.2013 and were dismissed by the impugned order of the same date.
It is apparent from the above sequence of events that there was inordinate delay in filing of the written statement. After the right to file the written statement was closed the appellant/defendant no.l did not file any appeal or application for recall of the said order till 30.05.2013. Even after the withdrawal of the applications on 01.07.2013, there was a ftirther delay of almost two months before the appellant/defendant no.l filed the said applications being lA Nos. 13326/2013 and 13327/2013.
The observation of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the delay is unexplained cannot be faulted. Consequently, no cas^ has. been made out for interference with the impugned order. , '
The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 08, 2013
MK
JUDGMENT