BHABATOSH SINHA Vs. PARA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 375 of 2002 pending in the Court of Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Cuttack has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 4th November, 2004, passed by the Court below rejecting the Written Statement filed by the said defendant on the ground that the same was filed much beyond the time stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'C.P.C.'). From the order sheet of the suit it appears that the notice was served upon the defendants fixing 20-1-2003 as the date of appearance. The petitioner appeared on the said date and filed a petition praying to grant some time to file written statement. The Court on being satisfied that there was sufficient grounds, granted time to file written statement. Thereafter on several other subsequent dates defendant No. 1 filed petitions for time to file written statement on the grounds mentioned therein. The Court on being satisfied that there were sufficient grounds, granted time to the petitioner to file written statement by 12-10-2004 and on the said date the defendant No. 1 filed written statement. Thereafter a petition was filed by the plaintiff with prayer to reject the written statement on the ground that the same was filed much beyond the time mandatorily stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The Court below after hearing parties by the impugned order held that resorting to inherent power, extending time to file written statement beyond the time stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is not permissible in view of the specific provision and the time granted by the Court to file written statement could not be sustained and accordingly refused to accept the written statement filed by the petitioner. The said conclusion was arrived on the ground that if there is a specific provision to deal with a contingency, inherent power cannot be exercised.

(2.) According to defendant-No. 1-peti-tioner the time stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. cannot be treated as an iron tight jacket. The Court if satisfied that there are sufficient reasons, can extend the time for filing the written statement, as has been done in the present case. That apart the Court having granted time, on being satisfied that there were sufficient grounds could not subsequently hold that the orders were not sustainable, and refuse to accept the written statement filed within the time granted by it.

(3.) Mr. A. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, on the other hand forcefully submitted that Court has no jurisdiction to grant time in exercise of inherent power when there is clear provision prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code. According to Mr. Mohapatra the provision under Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC being mandatory, the petitions filed for time by defendant No. 1 and orders granting him time by the Court beyond the time prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC are contrary to the said mandatory provision and as such non est in the eye of law. Mr. Mohapatra further submits that the impugned order is free from any infirmity and it is a fit case where the writ application should be dismissed.