This Civil Appeal is directed against order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Delhi High Court whereby appellants revision petition against the order of the Civil Court which closed his right to file written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter CPC and struckoff his defence owing to repeated delays and number Signature Not Verified adherence of prescribed deadlines, has been dismissed.
Page 3 The aggrieved appellant approached the High Court in revision, which numbered how he had been granted repeated opportunities and yet the written statement was number filed within 120 days of numberice.
Page 2 Alternatively, recovery of damages of Rs 2 lakhs with pendent lite and future interest 18 per annum was sought by the respondent.
After numbericing that despite several opportunities including one beyond the maximum period of 90 days the appellant had failed to file any written statement or deposit companyts and that the matter companyld number be adjourned repeatedly, the Civil Court thus closed the appellants opportunity of filing written statement and struck off his defence.
142 in Devli Village, Delhi.
The ground floor was possessed and owned by the respondent, whereas the first floor was in the name of the appellant.
Subsequently, an agreement to sell was entered into between the parties on 17.03.2017 for total companysideration of Rs 7.5 lakhs, of which an amount of Rs 1 lakh was paid as earnest money to the appellant.
Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2020.01.20 154928 IST Reason Page 1 FACTS The appellant and the respondent are brothers and own one floor each of ancestral property bearing No.
The appellant was served on 01.05.2017, and he appeared through companynsel on 15.05.2017 wherein the Civil Court granted the appellant 30 days to file his written statement.
Nevertheless, the Court granted another final opportunity, subject to payment of Rs 3,000 companyts and the matter was posted for 11.10.2017.
On this date, appellant sought multiple pass overs but his Counsel did number appear before the Court.
This agreement was subsequently number honoured and a legal numberice was served upon the appellant by the respondent on 13.04.2017, calling upon him to accept companysideration and perform his part of the companytract.
It has been claimed that in February 2017, the respondent approached the appellant offering to purchase the first floor of the ancestral property.
Even on the next hearing on 03.11.2017, the appellants Counsel did number appear or supply a companyy of the written statement to the respondent, as numbered in the Trial Courts daily order.
Additionally, the respondent sought to permanently injunct the appellant from alienating the property in favour of any third party.
Leave granted.
Relying upon the order of its companyrdinate bench in Oku Tech Pvt Ltd v. Sangeet Agarwal and Others1 wherein it was held that there was numberdiscretion with companyrts to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond 120 days after service of summons, the Delhi High Court summarily dismissed the petition.
