MRITUNJAY SRIVASTAVA @ MRITUNJ Vs. SABITA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) THIS revision application has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by learned Sub - Judge -VII. Chapra in Title Suit No. 160 of 2006. By the said order the learned court below has allowed the petition of the plaintiff for debarring the defendants from filing the written statement, in view of the expiry of the period prescribed by the Order VIII. Rule 1 of the C.P.C By the said order, the court below has also rejected the petition of the defendent for allowing them to file the written statement rejected the written statement has filed with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time limit fixed by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the C. P.C. is not mandatory as has been held by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2009(1) PLJR page (SC)286 (Sambhaji & Ors. vs. Gangabai & Ors.). Therefore, the court below should have allowed the petition of the defendant for accepting the written statement and should have rejected the petition of the plaintiff for debarring the defendants from filing the written statement. He submits that defendant had filed the petition alongwith the written statement, prior to the order passed on the petition of the plaintiff and therefore, they have not disclosed sufficient reasons for delay in filing of the written statement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party submits that in filing of the written statement the delay has to be condoned as an exception and only on sufficient reasons to be shown by the defendant and accepted by the court. In support of his statement, he relies upon a judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors., 2005(3) PLJR (SC)241 S.C and particularly refers to paragraphs 41 to 45 of the said judgment.