versus

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 27.07.2023 in CS DJ No. 635/2021, titled ‘DR SHAMBHUJI Vs.

MANOJ KUMAR MANN’ whereby the learned Trial Court had dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 148 and 151 CPC, 1908 seeking condonation of delay. [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/defendant was served on 16.12.2021 and the written statement was filed on 21.04.2022. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has not examined the law laid down CM(M) 170/2023 2 by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 ‘In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation’ whereby the time with effect from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was considered to be excluded for the purposes of limitation and filing various pleadings in the Courts all over the country. Vide the judgment of Supreme Court in Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited reported as AIR (2022) 5 SCC 112, the Supreme Court has also provided an extended period of 90 days following 01.03.2022 for the purposes of filing various pleadings. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the filing of the written statement on 21.04.2022 was well within the extended period as directed by the Supreme Court.

3. Dr Shambhuji, respondent in person who is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court on the other hand opposes the aforesaid submission and submits that the petitioner has violated the directions passed by the learned Trial Court.

4. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions.

5. It is clear that the petitioner was served on 16.12.2021 which is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the time as stipulated of 30 days and the extended period of 60 days thereafter provided under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in respect of ordinary suits had lapsed by that time.

6. It is also not disputed by the parties that the petitioner/defendant had filed his written statement on 21.04.2022.

7. Learned Trial Court while considering the issue overlooked the fact that the service of summons as also the time period to file the CM(M) 170/2023 3 written statement and the fact of having filed the written statement on 21.04.2023 were within the period of amnesty as granted by the Supreme Court.

8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Trial Court has not considered the circumstances as obtaining in the present case as also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 (Supra). Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that was no way in which the learned Trial Court could have refused to take the written statement on record.

9. There is no valid reason for closing the right to file the written statement much less any reason at all to strike of the defence of the petitioner /defendant.

10. Learned Trial Court on the basis that the written statement has been struck off the defence has also simultaneously not taken the counterclaim on record.

11. Having regard to the fact that this Court has directed the learned Trial Court to take the written statement on record, automatically the counterclaim filed along with the said written statement shall also be taken on record and proceed in accordance with law. The taking on record of the counter claim ofcourse will be subject to the law of limitation, if applicable. The same is without prejudice to rights of the parties. CM(M) 170/2023 4

12. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

13. Pending application also stand disposed of.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. MAY 16, 2023