2025:HHC:36027 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.578/2024 Date of Decision: 29th October, 2025. Aneesh Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Bahra Educational and Charitable Society ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.07.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP, whereby an application under Section 148 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the present respondent/defendant seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement has been allowed and written statement is permitted to be taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3. The application seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement is appended along with present petition as Annexure P-2. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the respondent/defendant, in the case at hand, had appeared for the first time before the learned trial Court on 22.12.2023. On the said date, the counsel for the respondent/defendant had requested the petitioner/plaintiff for supply of documents 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:36027 attached along with the plaint filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. However, the same were not supplied till the next date of hearing, which was on 01.03.2024. 4. On 01.03.2024, the matter had been fixed for filing of Power of Attorney and written statement on behalf of respondent/defendant. However, on the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was posted for 27.04.2024. On 27.04.2024, fresh notices were issued to the respondent/defendant and his counsel and the matter was posted for 05.07.2024. It is on 05.07.2024 that the respondent/defendant through counsel had appeared and had moved an application seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement and post-allowing of the same on the very said date, had filed his written statement. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 is devoid of any reasons and hence, the same needs to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that while allowing the application, the learned District Judge has categorically mentioned in the impugned order that the application, in the case at hand, seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement has been allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application, hence, impugned order is not devoid of any reasons. 3 2025:HHC:36027 6. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in 2007 (14) SCC 431, titled Aditya Hotels (P) Limited Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Limited. The relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “6. The parameters for extending the time granted by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code have been delineated by this Court in several cases. In Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (2005 (4) SCC 480) it was noted as follows: "42. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 has to be honoured. The defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defence and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the Court. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the Court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. * * * 44. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing, 4 2025:HHC:36027 howsoever brief they may be, by the court. In no case, shall the defendant be permitted to seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. The court may impose costs for dual purpose: (i) to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for the asking, and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him." 7. Since neither the trial Court nor the High Court have indicated any reason to justify the acceptance of the written statement after the expiry of the time fixed, we set aside the orders of the trial Court and that of the High Court. The matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh in the light of what has been stated in Kailash's case (supra). The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.” 7. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 05.07.2024, it is evident that the application filed by the respondent/defendant seeking enlargement of time had been opposed orally. No time for filing reply thereto had been sought by the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, the averments contained in the application filed for engagement of time were not controverted or sought to be controverted. It is in this backdrop, that the trial Court/learned District Judge based on the reasons contained in the application allowed the same. 8. Other than the aforesaid, trial is a search for truth. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to SLP(C) No.14445 of 2021, titled Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer and Anr. Relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- 5 2025:HHC:36027 2……….Trial is a search of truth. This purpose is succinctly captured in the following terms in American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 2007: “The purpose of trial is to determine the validity of the allegations. The objective is to secure a fair and impartial administration of justice between the parties to the litigation and not the achievement of a hearing wholly free from errors. Once a civil action has been instituted and issue is joined upon the pleadings, there must be a trial on the issue before a judgment may be rendered. Trial is not a contest between lawyers but a presentation of facts to which the law may be applied to resolve the issues between the parties and to determine their rights. It is also not a sport; it is an inquiry into the truth, in which the general public has an interest.” It would be useful to also refer to the objectives in framing rules for conducting civil proceedings. The Halsbury’s Law of England state the following overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules: (i) ensuring that the parties are on equal footing; (ii) saving expense; (iii) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate: (a)to the amount of money involved; (b)to the importance of the case; (c)to the complexity of the issues; and (d)to the financial position of each party; 6 2025:HHC:36027 (iv) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and (v) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and (vi) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective. Undoubtedly, perhaps unquestionably, the same objectives guide the interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.” 9. Rules and procedure are handmaids of justice it is to be kept in mind that the suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.84,47,526/- by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant. One cannot be given a walk over regarding the issue since serious civil consequences arise out of the same. 10. In the case at hand admittedly the respondent/defendant had appeared for the first time in the Court on 22.12.2023. As per the averments made in the application seeking enlargement of time filed under Section 148 of the CPC read with Section 151 CPC, it had been categorically averred that the respondent/defendant had requested the petitioner/plaintiff to supply documents filed along with the plaint, but the same had not been supplied to the respondent/defendant till the next date of hearing i.e. 7 2025:HHC:36027 01.03.2024. Hence, the respondent/defendant was unable to file a written statement on or before 01.03.2024. 11. Other than the aforesaid, on 01.03.2024, the Presiding Officer was on leave, hence, the matter was fixed for 27.04.2024. On the said date, fresh notices for effecting service of the respondent/defendant had been taken and it is in pursuance thereto that the respondent/defendant had appeared on 05.07.2024. The non-filing of written statement on 01.03.2024 is understandable, as the Presiding Officer was on leave on the said date and the respondent/defendant did not have the documents filed along with the plaint. However, on the next date of hearing on 27.04.2024, when a date of which the respondent/defendant was aware, none appeared for the respondent/defendant, hence, rather than issuing notices to the respondent/defendant and his counsel for 05.07.2024, the respondent/defendant should have been proceeded against ex parte. However, the recourse adopted on 27.04.2024, was not objected to by the petitioner/plaintiff. On the next date, for the reasons narrated and as detailed in the application filed for seeking extension of time, the learned District Judge had permitted the respondent/defendant to file written statement. 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstance, the District Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. However, keeping in view the judgment referred to in Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd, petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to costs to 8 2025:HHC:36027 compensate the petitioner/plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him on account of the delayed filing of the written statement and to deter the respondent/defendant from seeking extension of time just for the asking. 13. In view of the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner/plaintiff on the date fixed before the learned District Judge. The written statement shall only be taken on record after payment of costs awarded herein. 14. Besides the aforesaid, the Court below henceforth shall ensure that if in case on a given date, the Presiding Officer is not present, then on the next date fixed, parties previously served and appearing in the Court in the matter are present either themselves or through their respective counsels. The practice adopted by the Court on 27.04.2024, in the case at hand, is undoubtedly impermissible in law and is not backed by any legal provision. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 07.11.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 29th October, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)