Full Text
Translation output
A4
% 21.9.2011
Present: Ms.Usha Jam, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Mishra, Advocate for the respondent.
Mr.V.P.Singh Bidhuri, Advocate for the respondent.
+CM(M) No.1325/2009 & CM No.16587/2009
*
The respondent has been served. He has put in appearance through his counsel.
The orders impugned before this Court are the orders dated
26.5.2009 and 06.6.2009 vide which the defence of the defendant had been struck off as the written statement had not been filed within a period of 30 days; it had admittedly been filed within a period of 90 days. The record shows that the defendant was served on 29.4.2009. Written statement was, however, not filed within a period of 30 days. An application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed seeking recalling of the order dated 26.5.2009 vide which the defence of the defendant had been
IFstruck off. In this application it has been contended that although the draft written statement had been prepared parawise and it had signed by the competent officer as well but the clerk of the counsel had due to bonafide mistake noted a wrong date of hearing i.e. of
29.5.2009 and when she reached the court at 11.00 AM the order dated 26.5.2009 which has now been impugned had already been passed. Keeping in view the explanation furnished by the learned
2011:DHC:19510 counsel for the petitioner as also the fact that the written statement was admittedly filed within the period of 90 days the impugned orders dated 26.5.2009 and 06.6.2009 are set aside subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. Written statement be taken on reord.
Replication now be filed within three weeks. )
Petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 nandan i*
.
-
T, 2011:DHC:19510
Present: Ms.Usha Jam, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Mishra, Advocate for the respondent.
Mr.V.P.Singh Bidhuri, Advocate for the respondent.
+CM(M) No.1325/2009 & CM No.16587/2009
*
The respondent has been served. He has put in appearance through his counsel.
The orders impugned before this Court are the orders dated
26.5.2009 and 06.6.2009 vide which the defence of the defendant had been struck off as the written statement had not been filed within a period of 30 days; it had admittedly been filed within a period of 90 days. The record shows that the defendant was served on 29.4.2009. Written statement was, however, not filed within a period of 30 days. An application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed seeking recalling of the order dated 26.5.2009 vide which the defence of the defendant had been
IFstruck off. In this application it has been contended that although the draft written statement had been prepared parawise and it had signed by the competent officer as well but the clerk of the counsel had due to bonafide mistake noted a wrong date of hearing i.e. of
29.5.2009 and when she reached the court at 11.00 AM the order dated 26.5.2009 which has now been impugned had already been passed. Keeping in view the explanation furnished by the learned
2011:DHC:19510 counsel for the petitioner as also the fact that the written statement was admittedly filed within the period of 90 days the impugned orders dated 26.5.2009 and 06.6.2009 are set aside subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. Written statement be taken on reord.
Replication now be filed within three weeks. )
Petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 nandan i*
.
-
T, 2011:DHC:19510
JUDGMENT