Court allows defendants to file written statement despite significant delay, emphasizing need for liberal approach

The court, in a petition under Article 227, set aside an order closing the defendants' right to file a written statement in a civil suit due to their advocate's inaction. Despite a significant delay of 3330 days, the court, citing legal principles, upheld the defendants' right to defend the suit, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays without negligence or mala fides. The court allowed the defendants to file their written statement within 15 days upon payment of costs, balancing substantial justice with the parties' rights.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition under Article 227 to set aside an order closing the right to file a written statement.
2. Failure to file a written statement due to the inaction of the advocate.
3. Request to condone the delay in filing the written statement.
4. Application of legal principles regarding condonation of delay.
5. Upholding the right of the defendants to defend the suit despite the delay.

Issue 1:
The petitioners, originally defendant Nos. 3 and 4, filed a petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside an order closing their right to file a written statement in Special Civil Suit No. 447 of 2010.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought to challenge the order dated 6.2.2020, which closed their right to file a written statement in the civil suit. Despite due service, the respondents did not appear before the court, leading to the matter proceeding ex-parte.

Issue 2:
The failure to file the written statement was attributed to the inaction of the advocate representing the petitioners.

Analysis:
The petitioners' advocate failed to inform them about the need to file a written statement, resulting in the closure of their right to do so on 1.5.2012. The delay in filing the written statement was caused by the advocate's negligence in not updating the petitioners about the case's status.

Issue 3:
The petitioners requested the court to condone the delay of 3330 days in filing the written statement.

Analysis:
The petitioners argued that they promptly acted upon learning about the failure to file the written statement, hiring a new advocate and filing the necessary application. Citing legal precedents, they emphasized the importance of showing a sufficient cause to condone the delay, especially when no negligence or mala fides can be attributed to the party.

Issue 4:
The judgment discussed legal principles regarding the condonation of delay, citing relevant case laws to support the petitioners' request.

Analysis:
The court referred to various legal precedents emphasizing that the courts should adopt a liberal approach in construing "sufficient cause" for condoning delay, especially when no negligence, inaction, or mala fides are involved. The court highlighted the need to balance substantial justice with the rights accrued to the parties due to delay.

Issue 5:
The judgment upheld the right of the petitioners to defend the suit despite the delay caused by the advocate's inaction.

Analysis:
The court, considering the circumstances and the failure of the respondents to appear, exercised discretion in favor of the petitioners. It emphasized that the valuable right of the petitioners should not be defeated due to the advocate's inaction. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the petitioners to file their written statement within 15 days upon payment of costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal principles applied by the court in reaching its decision to set aside the order and allow the petitioners to file their written statement.

---