BABULAL Vs. SURENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both the learned counsel the matter is heard at the motion hearing stage.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 10.12.2015 and 16.2.2016 passed by 18th Civil Judge, Class -I Indore in Civil Suit No.12 -B/2015 thereby right of the petitioner to file written statement has been closed. The petitioner has filed a civil suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,51,000/ -. That thereafter the learned Court granted time to the petitioner for filing the written statement. However, the trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2015 has closed the right of the petitioner to file the written statement and fixed the case for framing the issue. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for recalling the said order. However, the said application has been dismissed vide order dated 16.2.2016.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and thereby closing the right of the petitioner to file written statement. He further relied on judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs. Kumar reported in AIR 2006 SC 396 and submits that although there is a limit of filing written statement within a period of 90 days. However, the said period can be extended beyond 90 days and therefore, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. are directory in nature and hence, the Court should have allowed the petitioner to file the written statement. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to compensate the other side for payment of the cost.