Forfeiture Of Right To File Written Statement Bars A Party From Bringing In Pleadings & Evidence Indirectly: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court observed that the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement should bar a party from bringing in pleadings and evidence to support such case.
The Court explained that the right of such a party was confined to participate in the proceedings without filing a written statement and to cross-examine the witness. The Bench clarified that such a party could be permitted only to argue the legal questions regarding “lapses or laches and the consequential non-admissibility or otherwise of evidence.”
A Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “In the absence of any specific provisions dealing with non-filing of written statements/forfeiture of the right to file a written statement, taking note of the general position as above, it can only be held that it should bar the opposite party in a proceeding before the Consumer Redressal Forums to bring in pleadings, indirectly to introduce its/his case and evidence to support such case.”
Sr. Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha appeared for the appellants, while AOR Balaji Srinivasan represented the respondents.
The appellants had filed a Consumer Case alleging deficiency in service by the first respondent (builder). The appellants sought several reliefs from the NCDRC, including compensatory interest for the delay, refund of illegally charged fees, and completion of promised amenities. The NCDRC partially allowed the complaint, directing the respondent to pay delayed compensation.
The appellants challenged the impugned order, arguing that the first respondent introduced new facts through written submissions, despite having forfeited the right to file a written statement as per the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court had earlier stated that the builder had forfeited this right due to its failure to file the statement in time.
The NCDRC, however, allowed the builder to file written submissions, which the appellants claimed contained new facts to dispute their claims.
“We are at a loss to understand as to how, such an opportunity could have been utilised by the first respondent in defiance to the specific directions of this Court…and to file a written submission of such a nature,” the Court remarked.
The Apex Court discussed the impact of forfeiture of the opportunity to file a written statement. The Bench referred to its decision in Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan (2022) wherein it was held that even though the defendants who had not filed the written statement, could be permitted to participate in the suit and cross-examine the witnesses.
“The position is that even if the defendant/opposite party failed to file a written statement and, in that matter, even if forfeiture of the right to file written statement has occasioned it would not disentitle that party from participating in the further proceedings, without filing a written statement and in such circumstances, the said party would also be having the right to cross-examine the witness(es), if any, of the plaintiff/complainant,” the Court explained.
The Bench then explained the difference between a situation of non-filing of a written statement pursuant to a declaration that the opposite party had forfeited the right to file a written statement and the absence of denial of specific pleadings of the complainant in the written statement filed by an opposite party.
“In the latter case, absence of denial of specific pleadings on facts they can be taken as admitted. In the case on hand, it is to be noted that actually as per order dated 27.01.2021, NCDRC had granted time to the first respondent to file a written statement with a caution that in case of failure to file the same within the stipulated time, the right to file a written statement would be closed,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court modified the formula formulated under the impugned judgment by the NCDRC in the matter of payment of compensation for delay in handing over possession of flats and ordered that “the liability of the developer to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be from the due date for possession fixed…till the date on which the respective complainant-buyers are offered possession.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part.
Cause Title: Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. v. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 542)
Appearance:
Appellants: Sr. Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha; AOR Govind Jee; Advocates Omanakuttan K K, Rambha Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, and Kartikeya Khanna
Respondents: AOR Balaji Srinivasan; Advocates Devamshu Behl and Garima Jain