ARSHAD GULL Vs. GH. MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notices have been issued to the respondents. However, despite service no one has caused appearance on their behalf. Accordingly, they are set exparte. At request, this petition is taken for consideration on its own merits.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 14/12/2017 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ramban in File No.23/Misc. whereby the application for extension of time for filing the written statement has been rejected.

(3.) It is contended that the respondent No.1-plaintiff is the father of the petitioners who are his children from his second wife. The respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioners- defendants in the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban. The petitioners-defendants engaged their counsel, who advised them to provide some documents. On 1/5/2017, the counsel for the petitioners-defendants prayed for granting time for filing the written statement in presence of the counsel for the respondent No.1-pliantiff. The trial Court granted time for filing the written statement and the next date was fixed on 15/5/2017, but, the case was taken up by the trial Court on 16/5/2017 as is evident from the copy of the interim orders placed on record. On 16/5/2017, the written statement was filed by the petitioners-defendants through their counsel. The counsel for the respondent No.-planitnff raised the objection that the written statement had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Order 8 of CPC. The counsel for the petitioners-defendants then filed an application for permission to file the written statement. The written statement was returned by the Court to the counsel for the petitioners. The Principal District Judge, Ramban vide order dtd. 14/12/2017 has held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory. However, the application filed by the petitionersdefendants for permission to file the written statement has been rejected on the ground that there was case of negligence on the part of the petitioners-defendants.