SUMAN JAIN Vs. JAIMALA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against order dated 18th September, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the application filed by defendants 7-10, praying for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

(2.) IN the suit filed by the respondents herein, the appellants namely, defendant No. 7 and defendant No. 10 did not file the written statement within the statutory period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the code of Civil Procedure (the Code for short ). Consequently, they filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. Objection was taken at that stage by the respondents/plaintiffs that the written statement has not been verified in accordance with law and is not accompanied by any affidavits which are statutorily required to be filed. Affidavits of defendant no. 7 and defendant No. 10 filed along with the written statement merely state that "contents of affidavits are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. Since the affidavits and verification were not in terms of the provisions and as required, the learned single judge held that the written statement cannot be taken on record as the same was not in accordance with law. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal is filed on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that even if it was found by the Court that verifications in the affidavits annexed with the written statement and the written statement was not in form and conformity with the statutory requirement, an opportunity should have been granted to the party to rectify the defect, if there be any.