R N JADI Vs. SUBHASHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for himself and on behalf of D.K. Jain, J.):- Leave granted.

(2.) The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The appellants-defendants were issued summons by the trial Court. They did not file the written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons and there was a delay of two days. The trial Court accepted the written statement which was filed beyond 90 days despite the objection raised by the plaintiff-respondent. The order of the trial Court was challenged before the Karnataka High Court in a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) on the ground that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC) was mandatory and the trial Judge could not have accepted the written statement filed beyond 90 days from the date of service. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.8.2004. A Writ Appeal was filed which was held to be not maintainable.

(3.) A review petition was filed taking the stand that in view of a decision of this Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480) where it was held that the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 CPC are directory, the reasons justifying the delayed presentation of the written statement could be satisfactorily explained. The High Court dismissed the review petition on the ground that a case for review was not made out. All the three orders are under challenge in this appeal.