PANKAJ GANGWAR Vs. KALAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) In Original Suit No. 180 of 2009, Smt. Gayatri Devi Gangwar, respondent No. 2 was subsequently impleaded. On her impleadment, she filed her written statement, though with some delay. It has been taken on record by the trial court vide order dated 23.1.2012. The said order was challenged by the petitioners who are plaintiff in the suit, in revision but the revision failed on 28.3.2012. Thus, they have come in this writ petition contending that the written statement filed after five months of the stipulated time could not have been taken on record.

(3.) In R. N. Jadi and Brothers and others Vs. Subhashchandra, 2007 6 SCC 420 a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in interpreting the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 C. P. C. and the proviso thereto as substituted by Act No. 22 of 2002 w. e. f. 1.7.2002 held that the time limit of 90 days for taking on record the written statement is not mandatory but directory in nature. It does not take away the power of the Court to take on record the written statement filed even beyond period of 90 days. It only casts an obligation upon defendant to file written statement within the time stipulated but that is not an absolute rule. Thus, in short the courts are not precluded from taking on record written statement even if it has been filed beyond the period stipulated.