In an appeal filed before the Bombay High Court against an order by the Trial Court whereby the Court refused to take the written statement of the original defendant on ground of delay, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain allowed the appeal and permitted the defendant to file a written statement within eight weeks.
The instant matter dealt with two siblings, a brother and a sister, who were litigating over the properties of their parents. The subject suit was filed by the brother for defamation, and it was stated by the Trial Court that the original defendant was aware of the proceedings since an advocate had appeared. Considering the circumstances, the Trial Court concluded that the original defendant did not file a written statement even after being aware of the proceedings and thus refused to condone the delay.
The Court stated that the facts of the present proceedings reminded it of Rakshabandhan and Bhaubeej, which are celebrated to ensure that siblings stand with each other whenever required. However, the Court was sad to note that in present times, siblings do not stand together but against each other in a court of law.
The Court noted that the animosity between the parties had reached such a stage that the words used in the complaint were highly objectionable.
Further, the Court noted that the confusion regarding the appearance of the advocate before the Trial Court was caused since the said advocate had filed her vakalatnama in a preceding matter and through the tag-down tab, her name was reflected by the office of the Civil Court in the subject matter even though she had not filed a vakalatnama. Hence, it was clarified that the said advocate was never engaged by the defendant in the matter.
Therefore, the Court found that the main basis of rejection of the prayer for filing of a written statement was erroneous and could not be sustained.
The Court perused the record and pointed out that prima facie it appeared that the sign at page 68, showing the recording of the Sheriff indicating that the proceedings were served on the defendant, did not tally with another signature of his. Thus, the Court said it could not be stated that the service was actually made on the defendant.
The Court directed the Trial Court to logically conclude the perjury proceedings and to initiate proceedings against the offenders in the event that there was really a falsification or fraud.
The Court set aside the impugned order and permitted the defendant to file the written statement within eight weeks. It was further said that the parties must not suffer for the errors of the court office while rejecting the submission for the imposition of a heavy cost.
The Court stated that the various proceedings between the parties were an attemp to clog the system and one of the reasons why matters deserving more attention cannot be taken up. It was further said that the broken sibling relationship can be attributed to greed, ego, as well as the desire of a materialistic life and that siblings should learn to give up than to give into litigation.
Lastly, while allowing the appeal, the Court asked the Trial Court to take up the main suit in its regular turn and not to give any priority to this matter.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Ramprakash Pandey a/w. Mr. Udaybhan Tiwari
For Respondent – Mr. Arvind Taral
