RAVINDRALAL BIHARILAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. VIMALKUMAR SANTLAL SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Considering that the interim order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division on 4-8-2012 is questioned in the instant petition whereby permission to take the written statement on record for to defend Special Civil Suit No. 1056/2010 was refused by the trial Court on the ground that the defendant No. 1 (petitioner) was not diligent enough to fulfil his undertaking.

(2.) Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No. 1) submitted that suit was for instituted for the recovery of damages claimed in the sum of rupees five crore on account of alleged malicious arrest and illegal detention of the plaintiff resulting in defamation of the plaintiff, who is a mechanical engineer and served in Nagpur Engineering Company in the year 1998 and after resigning, he joined another company by name Sricon Infrastructure Private Limited.

(3.) I need not enter into details of facts pleaded, as the question is raised regarding the procedure arising under Order VIII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. In a given case when time limit is fixed for filing written statement, normal rule is that written statement has to be filed within time limit, allowed by the Court as compliance of time limit can ensure smooth progress of the suit, early hearing thereof and justice according to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant No. 1) submitted that in the interest of substantial justice, the defendant No. 1 ought to have been permitted to place his written statement on record, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant No. 1), is already placed on record of the trial Court. In support of these submissions, a reference is made to the ruling in M/s. R.N. Jadi and Brothers and ors. v. Subhash Chandra, 2007 AIR(SC) 2571 It was held in view of a decision of the Apex Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and ors., 2005 4 SCC 480 wherein it was observed that the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code are directory, the reasons justifying the delayed presentation of the written statement could be satisfactorily explained.