LATOORLAL MALI Vs. DINESH KUMAR BANSAL & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 29.8.2003, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi dismissed the application filed by the petitioner defendant for taking his written statement of defence on record.

(2.) None is present for the respondents despite service of notice.

(3.) HAVING reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC envisages that the defendant shall submit the written statement of his defence within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him. A bare perusal of the language of order 8 Rule 1 suggests that the defendant is expected and required to file the written statement of his defence within 30 days of the service of summons only but not later than ninety days for the reasons to be recorded by the court. The object behind substituting Order VIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code in the present shape is to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases much to the chagrin of the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the court, faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. The process of justice may be speeded up and hurried but the fairness, which is a basic element of justice cannot be permitted to be buried.