(1.) With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the main application is taken up for hearing. The petitioner defendant No. 2 has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 14th September, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Sealdah in Ejectment Case No. 175/2004. By the order impugned, ld. trial Court rejected the written statement filed by the petitioner defendant No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 500/-. Mr. Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioner defendant No. 1 submits that the present petitioner earlier filed one application challenging the maintainability of the suit and that without disposing of said application ld. trial Court illegally rejected the written statement filed by the petitioner defendant No. 1.
(2.) Mr. Ghosh appearing for the O.P. on the other hand submits that said application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was rejected long back by the Court below being not pressed by the order dated 27th October, 2005. He submits that there was hardly any explanation for filing of the written statement in 2010 when the petitioner defendant No. 1 appeared in the suit in 2004. I have gone through the order impugned. It appears that the learned trial Court has rightly observed that though the petitioner defendant No. 1 appeared long back in 2004 but no satisfactory explanation was given as to why he filed said written statement in 2010.
(3.) In terms of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC the defendant is required to present a written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. However, defendant was given liberty to file the written statement within 90 days from the date of appearance after giving sufficient grounds for not filing the same within 30 days. In terms of Calcutta High Court Amendment only under showing exceptional cases and cogent grounds the written statement filed within 120 days of appearance may be accepted by the Court but the written statement filed beyond that period cannot be accepted.