TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Court further observed that since the period of 120 days for filing the Written Statement was already over, the Appellant's right to file the same was closed. 3. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed the Suit in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant for Rs. 6,26,617/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Seventeen) along with interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of filing of the Suit and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of institution of Suit till realization. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The Respondent is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of granite, marble, tile, etc. The Appellant had approached the Respondent at its Delhi office for the sale of granite marbles, and a purchase order dated 15.06.2018 ("Purchase Order") for the supply of granite slabs worth Rs. 4,09,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Nine Thousand Two Hundred), was issued by the Respondent to the Appellant. It was contended that the Purchase Order was duly accepted by the Appellant. The Respondent further contended that in order to enable the Appellant to supply the granite slabs, the Respondent had also paid the complete advance amount to the Appellant. 5. The Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and realized that signatures were forged on the said Purchase Order. 11. The learned Trial Court vide Order dated 11.07.2022, observed that no Written Statement had been filed by the Appellant, thereby closing the right of the Appellant to file a Written Statement and striking off its defence. Since the Appellant failed to appear despite being called twice on 11.07.2022, vide the Order passed on said date, the Appellant was proceeded ex-parte. 12. Thereafter, the Appellant filed an Application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking to set aside the Order dated 11.07.2022. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant specifically took the ground that the learned Counsel for the Appellant was severely affected by pulmonary disease, due to which he could neither appear nor contact the Appellant. 13. The said Application was allowed vide Order dated 23.09.2022, thereby, setting aside the Order dated 11.07.2022 by which the Appellant was proceeded ex-parte. However, in the same Order the learned Trial Court noted that since the period of 120 days to file the Written Statement had already elapsed, the Appellant's right to file the same stood clos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he registration of M/s GS Marbles on 22.09.2020. It was further submitted that the Appellant was never involved in any of the transactions and had no knowledge of any transactions as all the accounts and books of M/s GS Marbles have been seized by the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Jaipur and are currently in their possession as part of the investigation. 21. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant made inquiries from various sources and learnt that Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) was received by M/s GS Marbles in its account on 20.06.2018. It was further submitted that the same amount was transferred by Mr. Rajaram Agarwal to the firm of his relative, Ms. Sushila Devi Agrawal, on 21.06.2018. Thereafter, on 09.08.2018, the said amount was again transferred from the firm of Ms. Sushila Devi Agrawal to M/s GS Marbles. Subsequently, M/s GS Marbles received a sum of Rs. 1,02,970/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy) in its account on 09.07.2018. After that, a total amount of Rs. 4,02,970/- (Rupees Four Lakh Two Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy) was transferred to Kanaram Begaram Enterprises, which is a J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice had elapsed, the right to file Written Statement was closed. 28. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent relied upon the following judgments: i. M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt.: (2019) 12 SCC 210, the Supreme Court held that ordinarily a written statement is supposed to be filed within a period of 30 days. However, a grace period of a further 90 days is granted within which the written statement can be filed, which the Court, may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of costs by the Defendant. Of pertinent importance is the fact that beyond the 120 days from the date of service of Summons, the Defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC provides that the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record thereafter. Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC provides that the Court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days. ii. M/s Vidhi Electrical & Eng Co v. C & S Electrical Ltd.: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1429, the Division Bench of this Court held that as the CPC requires the filing of written statement within 30 days a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. ****** 10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. - Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up: Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement." 31. An examination of the aforesaid provision reveals that the ordinary statutory period prescribed for filing the written statement is 30 days from the date of service of summons. However, the Court may grant a discretionary extension of a period of 90 days, upon recording cogent reasons in writing and payment of such costs as the Court may deem appropriate for permitting the written statement to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. In that event, the ex-parte judgment although may appear to have decided the suit expeditiously, it ultimately gives rise to several layers of appeal after appeal which ultimately compounds the delay in finally disposing of the suit giving rise to multiplicity of proceedings which hardly promotes the cause of speedy trial. 27. However, if the court is clearly of the view that the plaintiff's case even without any evidence is prima facie unimpeachable and the defendant's approach is clearly a dilatory tactic to delay the passing of a decree, it would be justified in appropriate cases to pass even an uncontested decree. What would be the nature of such a case ultimately will have to be left to the wisdom and just exercise of discretion by the trial court who is seized of the trial of the suit." 35. It is a settled position of law that Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC is a permissive rule that provides the Court with two alternatives in case the defendant fails to file the written statement. Firstly, the Court can pronounce the judgment in favour of the plaintiff if the Court for reasons to be recorded i....