RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioners -plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') is that the learned trial Court in their suit for eviction, arrears of rent and possession continues to grant indulgence to the respondents -defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') to file their written statement contrary to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. He submits that over a period of seven months has passed since the service of the plaint on the defendants and yet the learned trial Court continues to mechanically allow further time to the defendants to file their written statement. Counsel for the plaintiffs has stated that the next date fixed before the trial Court for filing of the written statement to the plaintiffs' suit is 13.01.2014. Counsel submits that albeit the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory, yet mechanical adjournments and extension of time for filing the written statement would be defeating the very purpose of the amendment to Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has frowned upon mechanical extension of time in filing the written statement in the case of Mohammed Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors., : (2009) 3 SCC 513 and in fact proceeded to set aside the order of the High Court whereby the time for filing the written statement was mechanically extended without good reasons by the High Court overturning the order of the trial Court refusing to do so. Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned order dt. 25.10.2013, passed by the trial Court.

(2.) NO doubt the trial Court has the discretion to extend time to file the written statement yet it cannot be gainsaid in the context of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and more particularly in the context of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Yusuf (supra) that the discretion for extension of time for filing the written statement has to be exercised only for good reasons. Mechanical extension of time more so beyond 120 days of service of the plaint on the defendant for filing the written statement is completely irregular. The whole purpose of amendment to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC was to expedite the trial in civil suits and help eschew the harassment of the plaintiffs by delayed filing of written statement and consequent delayed trial.