CUTTACK, India, Feb. 10 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Jan. 9:

1. This CMP has been filed challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in C.S. No. 1302 of 2023 setting aside the ex-parte order and accepting the written statement filed after closure of the plaintiff's evidence.

2. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the suit in the year 2023, the plaintiff was aged about 83 years and in the meanwhile due to old age ailments, she has become bedridden, so the defendant had deliberately tried to delay disposal of the suit. He further submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is not based on proper grounds or reasonings.

3. Perused the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in C.S. No. 1302 of 2023.

4. By virtue of the order, as the Petitioner of the defendant for acceptance of the written statement has been allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- holding that even though several opportunities have been given to the defendant to file her written statement, it is the settled position of law that opportunity should be given to both the parties to represent the case and there would be miscarriage of justice if the defendant is not allowed to contest the case by filing written statement.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT

5. In the case of Kailash v. Nanhku : (2005) 4 SCC 480, the Supreme Court has held that : -

"42....The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended.

43. A prayer seeking time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement ought to be made in writing. In its judicial discretion exercised on wellsettled parameters, the court may indeed put the defendants on terms including imposition of compensatory costs and may also insist on an affidavit, medical certificate or other documentary evidence (depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case) being annexed with the application seeking extension

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xzY0EkTEt2BeW%2BhrsPlQnSvO0346n4Uxdr%2F2xaIGHIHh&caseno=CMP/1954/2025&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010861912025&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.