Sri Kamlesh Singh versus Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. - Order No: 1

T. S. 73/2018

21-03-2020 None represented. With the following order, petition 200/32 is proposed to be disposed of. Said petition was filed by the Defendant no. 2 aND 3 praying to condone the delay in filing their writtenstatement. Heard learned counsels. Perused C/R. Learned counsel for the Defendants wouLd. submit while relying on decisions of our Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2008 SC 2099 Zolba Vs. Keshao & Others, AIR 2005 SC 2441 KailaSh. Vs. Nankhu & Others that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC fixing time schedule for filing of written-statement are directory aND not mandatory aND said provision does not impose embargo on Court's power to accept written-statement filed beyoND the statutory period. Foremost, let me deal with the prayer made under Section 5 Limitation Act to accept the written-statement after condoning the delay. The question of applicability of [Section 5](https: //indiankanoon. org/doc/100581/) of the Limitation Act to a written-statement in a Suit does not arise for the reason that said provision is applicable only to appeals or applications aND not to Suits. Now, can the written statement, which was filed beyoND the 90 days period, be accepted U/s 151 CPC? Section 151 is not a provision of law conferring power to grant any kiND of substantive relief. It cannot be invoked with reference to a matter which is covered by a specific provision in the CPC. It cannot be exercised in conflict with the general scheme aND intent of the Code. Thus, petition 200/32 is not tenable aND it is rejected in limine. Nonetheless, a careful scrutiny of the order sheet reflects that the Defendants' no. 2 aND 3 entered their appearance on 10-10-2018 aND sought time to file written-statement on 10-10-2018 aND 04-12-2018. Defendants filed written-statement on 21-01-2019. Learned counsel for the Defendants wouLd. further submit that the delay in filing the written-statement was due the fact that the Power Grid Corporation of India has its head office at Delhi aND the regional office at Shillong aND the officers stationed at Silchar have to act aND are guided by the instructions of the regional as well as head office aND as per the official norms aND procedure, a good amount of time was spent in the process aND that there was no intentional laches or negligence on the part of the Defendant sno. 2 aND 3. A Defendant should, within 30 days from the service of summons on him, present a writtenstatement of his defense. The said period, however, can be extended up to ninety days. Apparently, there is no service of summons upon the said Defendants. They entered appearance on 10- 10-2018, hence, the date of appearance shall be reckoned for the purpose of counting the statutory period prescribed for filing of written-statement. Order dated 10-10-2018 reflects that the Defendants were allowed time to file written-statement before the expiry of 90 days period irrespective of date fixed. Yet again, vide order dated 04-12-2018, this Court (the then Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar) fixed the date 21-01-2019 for filing of written-statement. The Defendants dutifully filed the writtenstatement on 21-01-2019. Now, orders dated 10-10- 2018 aND 04-12-2018 are contrary to each other as well as mutually conflicting. 21-03-2020 (contd/-) Herein, I am reminded of the Latin maxim, "actus curiae neminem gravabit", the act of the Court shall prejudice no person. This maxim is founded upon justice aND good sense aND affords a safe aND certain guide for the administration of the law. When substantial justice aND technical considerations are pitted against each other, the former prevails. To sub-serve the cause of substantial justice, I am inclined to accept the Defendant's written-statement aND on doing so, I do not reckon, any prejudice will be occasioned to the Plaintiffs, at the most, a lis will be adjudicated effectively, fairly aND on merits. In view of the matter, as stands now, the Defendant no. 2 aND 3's written-statement is accepted, however, with costs of `3000/- to be paid by the said Defendants to the Plaintiffs on or before next date failing which the Suit shall proceed without the writtenstatement of Defendant no. 2 aND 3. Let a copy of this order, under the signature of the Court Master, be furnished to both the parties forthwith. Inform both sides. Fixing 13-05-2020 for necessary order / costs.

1. 10. Borah

PS: Copyright: eCourtsIndia.com. AI-enhanced; accuracy may vary.

References: Case Number - TITLE SUIT/73/2018 | Case Type - TITLE SUIT | CNR Number - ASCC020001712018 | Complex Name - Civil Judge Senior Division | Court Name - 4-subhadra Acharyya-Civil Judge Sr. Div. No. 1 Cachar Silchar | Filing Date - 03-05-2018 | Judge Name - 4-Civil Judge Sr. Div. No. 1 Cachar Silchar | List Date - 2025-05-28 | Order Date - 2020-03-21 | Order Number - 1 | Petitioner Advocates - Dipak Kumar Debnot Appeared | Petitioner Parties - Sri Kamlesh Singh Advocate - Dipak Kumar Deb | Respondent Parties - Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. Advocate - Not Appeared2) The Dgm (Pesm And Cpio, Ner) Advocate -Santanu Naik 3) The Addl. General Manager Advocate -Santanu Naik 4) The Head Of The Project, M/S North East Transmission Company Lt.D | Status - Evidence Of Dws