NIZAM ALI Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 9/5/2019 in Civil Suit No.3-A/2019 passed by the Eight Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC, has been dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiffs have filed a suit on 2/1/2019, in which, defendant No.1 has appeared on 17/1/2019, but he has not filed the written statement within the stipulated period of 30 days as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. Though respondent No.1 has filed the written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons, but he neither filed any application for further extension of limitation to file the written statement nor stated the reason for late filing of the written statement. He further submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs have moved an application on 21/2/2019 under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC as the defendant has failed to file the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC within the time permitted or fixed by the Court. Consequently, the trial Court, in an arbitrary manner, dismissed the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC vide the impugned order. Therefore, learned counsel prays to quash the impugned order and direct the trial Court to not to read the written statement filed on 14/3/2019 by respondent No.1/defendant, in the proceedings of the case. He would place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of M/s. SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Ad others, AIR 2019 SC 2691 and Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad and others, (2009) 3 SCC 513.