SMT VIMLA DEVI Vs. MANOHAR SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 17.11.2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant for condoning the delay and refused to take the written statement of defence on record.

(2.) 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 Code of Civil Procedure 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 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure 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.

(3.) In the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480 , the Honourable Apex Court observed as under: