CHITTANKU RANJAN DAS Vs. SWATI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer" as held in case of Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, 1975 1 SCC 774 is the expression fervently used to interpret the processual law dominating certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantive justice. The unscrupulous defendant used to adopt the tools of law to prolong the litigation with an avowed object to delay the disposal of the suits which assumes an importance in bringing the amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 8 Rule 1 as it stood prior to the amendments having brought in the year 1999 and 2002 was one of such weapon in the hands of the defendant to postpone the filing of the written statement and the Courts were helping and aiding such recalcitrant defendant in granting the adjournment mechanically as when ask for. The rightful claim was delayed because of the frequent adjournments granted to the defendant for filing the written statement even after service of summons. The Parliament showed their anxiety in delayed disposal of the suits instituted before the Courts and invited the Law Commission to explore the mechanism to secure the speedy and early disposal of the civil suits.

(2.) On the recommendation of the Law Commission, Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code was substituted by the new provision which was couched in such manner which does not permit the Court to extend the time beyond 30 days from the date of service of summons on the defendant. Because of the stiff resistance from every corner, the said provision was revisited and came to be substituted by introducing the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, and the provision as it stood now is reproduced below:

(3.) What can be culled out from the aforesaid provision is narrated in Paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court in case of Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors, 2005 4 SCC 480 in these words: