Full Text
Translation output
21--- $6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 273/2013
PUSHPA JAIN & ORS.
Appellants
Through: Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Adv.
FAO(OS) 273/2013
PUSHPA JAIN & ORS.
Appellants
Through: Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Adv.
VERSUS
RAMESH KUIMAR JAIN & ANR.
I Respondent
Through: Mr. Anklal, Adv. for R- 1.
I Respondent
Through: Mr. Anklal, Adv. for R- 1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
19.07.2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
19.07.2013
FAO(OS) 273/2013 & CM Nos. 8897/2013(sta y), 8899/2013(condonation of delay in re-filin2 the appeal)
The present appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single
Judge dated 27th February, 2013 whereby the appellants/defendants' right to
S file written statement to the amended suit was foreclosed. The defendants/appellants submitted that the reply to the amendment application itself discloses that a copy of the proposed amended suit had not been furnished. It was submitted that in the circumstances, the Court directions made on 91h November, 2012 while permitting them amendment, to file the written statement could not be complied with. Counsel for the
2013:DHC:7304-DB -" plaintiffs/respondents states that the amendment was necessitated on the ground of the averments made by the defendants in the written statement with regard to the subsequent events which occurred during the pendency of proceedings. It was submitted that having known that the amendments were forthcoming, defendants sought to delay the proceedings and the learned
Single Judge was justified in refusing to extend the time to file the written statement.
This Court notices that the proceeding is pending before the Single
Judge is a partition suit. Apparently, the plaintiffs chose to amend the suit a year and a half after its institution on the ground that the written statement disclosed certain facts which needed to be reflected in the plaint. Though the defendants did not file the amended written statement in time, there is some material on the record to suggest that the plaintiffs had not furnished a
• copy of the amended suit at least at the stage while the amendment application had been preferred.
Having regard to these facts and overall circumstances of the case, the
Court is of the opinion that the appellants have a justified grievance. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs/respondents are granted liberty to file written statement within two weeks from today subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as u1 costs to the defendants/appellants.
The parties shall appraise the present order to the learned Single
Judge on 23rd July, 2013 when the matter is scheduled for hearing. Copy of the amended plaint has been furnished to the counsel for the defendants/applicants during the course of hearing.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. n S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
ZZm,J JULY 19, 2013/'sn'
The present appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single
Judge dated 27th February, 2013 whereby the appellants/defendants' right to
S file written statement to the amended suit was foreclosed. The defendants/appellants submitted that the reply to the amendment application itself discloses that a copy of the proposed amended suit had not been furnished. It was submitted that in the circumstances, the Court directions made on 91h November, 2012 while permitting them amendment, to file the written statement could not be complied with. Counsel for the
2013:DHC:7304-DB -" plaintiffs/respondents states that the amendment was necessitated on the ground of the averments made by the defendants in the written statement with regard to the subsequent events which occurred during the pendency of proceedings. It was submitted that having known that the amendments were forthcoming, defendants sought to delay the proceedings and the learned
Single Judge was justified in refusing to extend the time to file the written statement.
This Court notices that the proceeding is pending before the Single
Judge is a partition suit. Apparently, the plaintiffs chose to amend the suit a year and a half after its institution on the ground that the written statement disclosed certain facts which needed to be reflected in the plaint. Though the defendants did not file the amended written statement in time, there is some material on the record to suggest that the plaintiffs had not furnished a
• copy of the amended suit at least at the stage while the amendment application had been preferred.
Having regard to these facts and overall circumstances of the case, the
Court is of the opinion that the appellants have a justified grievance. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs/respondents are granted liberty to file written statement within two weeks from today subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as u1 costs to the defendants/appellants.
The parties shall appraise the present order to the learned Single
Judge on 23rd July, 2013 when the matter is scheduled for hearing. Copy of the amended plaint has been furnished to the counsel for the defendants/applicants during the course of hearing.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. n S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
ZZm,J JULY 19, 2013/'sn'
JUDGMENT