SHORAJ SINGH Vs. CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for specific performance was instituted by the plaintiff respondent against the petitioner on 24.12.2015. On the same date, summons were issued to the petitioner fixing 29.1.2016 for filing of written statement and 29.2.2016 for settlement of issues. The petitioner entered appearance through counsel on 11.7.2016. He filed written statement on 22.11.2016 i.e. after a lapse of more than four months from the date he entered appearance in the suit. Although the written statement was filed beyond the time stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC, but the petitioner did not file any application disclosing reason for not being able to file written statement within time. The plaintiff objected to the filing of the written statement by filing application paper No. 38Ga. After a lapse of about eight months, the petitioner filed an application paper No. 42Ga dated 31.7.2017 for condoning the delay. The only reason disclosed in the said application for not being able to file written statement within stipulated time is on account of mistake and oversight. The trial Court by impugned order dated 4.1.2018 has rejected the said application holding that the petitioner has failed to disclose any satisfactory reason much less any compelling reason for not being able to file written statement within time. The trial Court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Versus Union of India, 2005 AIR(SC) 3353, Sakh Saleem Haji Versus Kumar & another, 2006 AIR(SC) 396, Rani Kusum Versus Kanchan Devi & another, 2005 RevDec 616 (SC), Kailash Versus Nanhku & another, 2005 1 ARC 861 (SC).

(2.) The sole submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of inadvertence, the written statement could not be filed. He submitted that the petitioner has got a very good case on merits and, therefore, the slight delay in filing the written statement be condoned and the written statement be taken on record.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Kailash Versus Nanhku & another, 2005 1 ARC 861 (SC), has held that provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC stipulating filing of written statement within thirty days, which period could be extended up to ninety days, is not mandatory but only directory and in suitable case the period could be relaxed. However, it has also been held that the delay could not be condoned as a matter of course, but upon disclosure of compelling reasons beyond the control of a party. The relevant observations made in this regard are extracted below :-