Judgment · High Court

Present: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for the petitioner. Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. CMP(M) No. 617 of 2007 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that the delay in filing this revision petition is bonafide. This application is accordingly allowed and delay in filing the revision petition is condoned in the interest of justice. CR No. 146 of 2007 This revision petition has been filed by the State against the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Theog rejecting permission to the petitioner-State herein to file written statement. I find from the order that the learned Court has taken a pedantic and hyper technical view in invoking the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the written statement on behalf of defendant No.3 was awaited for 5th June, 2007, there was no reason as to why State could not have been granted the permission to file written statement subject to cost. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned Court below is quashed and set aside. Permission is granted to the State to file written statement to the claim preferred by the plaintiff/respondent. This will be subject to payment of Rs. 750/- as costs to the plaintiff. This Court has been informed that the suit has been listed on 19th November, 2008 before the learned Court below. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 19th November, 2008 on which date, the cost shall be paid. It is directed that a reasonable time be given to the State to file written statement. No further opportunity will be -2- granted. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. All interim orders stand vacated. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. November 11, 2008 (ms) (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge.