Full Text
Translation output
A-15
%28.07.2011
Present: Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Avneet Toor,Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM(M)No.199/2010
A
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 27.1.2010 vide which extension of time has been granted to the defendant to file his written statement.
Present suit has been filed by the petitioner under Order 37 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Leave to defend had been granted in favour ofthe defendant vide order dated 21.10.2008 of High Court. On that date defendant had been directed to file a written statement within two weeks and also to appear before District Judge on
1.12.2008. Matter had been remanded back by the High Court. On 1.12.2008 matter was adjourned to 5.12.2008. Record shows that on the subsequent dates which had followed the plaintiff was not present i.e. on 20.3.2009,2.4.2009 and 9.7.2009. Suit was again transferred from one courtto the second court on 29.7.2009. On 2.12.2009 an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC had been filed seeking extension oftime for filing the written statement. Record further shows that on 27.1.2010 the security directed to be deposited by the defendant i.e. a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- had been deposited. In view of the averments made in the application supported by the affidavit ofthe defendant as also the fact that an enormous amount is involved,the discretion exercised by the Court in extending time for allowing the defendant to file his written statement does not warrant any interference; however,cost ofRs.5,000/- isenhancedtoRs.20,000/-. Withtheseobservationspetitio/isdismissed.
JULY 28,2011/vld
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
2011:DHC:8804
%28.07.2011
Present: Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Avneet Toor,Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM(M)No.199/2010
A
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 27.1.2010 vide which extension of time has been granted to the defendant to file his written statement.
Present suit has been filed by the petitioner under Order 37 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Leave to defend had been granted in favour ofthe defendant vide order dated 21.10.2008 of High Court. On that date defendant had been directed to file a written statement within two weeks and also to appear before District Judge on
1.12.2008. Matter had been remanded back by the High Court. On 1.12.2008 matter was adjourned to 5.12.2008. Record shows that on the subsequent dates which had followed the plaintiff was not present i.e. on 20.3.2009,2.4.2009 and 9.7.2009. Suit was again transferred from one courtto the second court on 29.7.2009. On 2.12.2009 an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC had been filed seeking extension oftime for filing the written statement. Record further shows that on 27.1.2010 the security directed to be deposited by the defendant i.e. a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- had been deposited. In view of the averments made in the application supported by the affidavit ofthe defendant as also the fact that an enormous amount is involved,the discretion exercised by the Court in extending time for allowing the defendant to file his written statement does not warrant any interference; however,cost ofRs.5,000/- isenhancedtoRs.20,000/-. Withtheseobservationspetitio/isdismissed.
JULY 28,2011/vld
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
2011:DHC:8804
JUDGMENT