Vibhu Bakhru JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
IA No. 14602/2016
1. For the reasons stated in the application the delay of two days in filing the appeal (OA No. 222/2016) is condoned and the same is allowed.
2. The application stands disposed of.
OA No. 222/2016
3. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Rule 4 of Chapter II of the Delhi High Court Rules, 1967 impugning an order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the learned Joint Registrar (hereafter 'the impugned order') whereby the applications filed by the defendants for seeking permission to file the written statements were allowed.
4. The plaint was filed on 19.12.2009 and was initially numbered as IPA No. 29/2009; it was subsequently converted to a Civil Suit on 06.09.2011. Indisputably, the defendants were required to file their written statements within the prescribed time but the defendants failed and neglected to do so. However, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (IA No. 13260/2012) on 01.06.2012. The plaintiff also filed an application for amendment of the plaint (IA No. 13186/2011) on 12.08.2011.
5. The plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC (IA 13186/2011) was allowed on 15.05.2013. However, the defendants' application continued to be pending and was finally dismissed on 21.04.2016 with costs. The defendants preferred an appeal against the said order dated 21.04.2016 (being FAO(OS) 173/2016). However, the same was entertained only on the limited question of imposition of actual cost.
6. After the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC (IA 13260/2012) had been dismissed, the defendants filed an application (IA 8405/2016) on 11.07.2016, inter alia, praying that the defendants be permitted to file their written statements. This was followed by another application (IA No. 12227/2016) filed on 09.08.2016 for similar reliefs.
7. The aforesaid applications have been allowed by the learned Joint Registrar and this has led the plaintiff to file the present appeal.
8. Mr. Manav Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (plaintiff) assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Registrar principally on two grounds. First, he submitted that the learned Joint Registrar had grossly erred in allowing the applications, since a similar relief had been rejected by this Court in its order dated 21.04.2016 as well as by the Division Bench by its order dated 31.05.2016. Second, he submitted that the only ground on which the learned Joint Registrar had allowed the applications was that the defendants' applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC were pending. He submitted that pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be the ground for not filing the written statement. Third, he submitted that the impugned order was patently erroneous and in complete disregard of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC which required defendants to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons.
9. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (defendants) countered the submissions made o........