RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. DAYANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following questions of law emerge in the instant matter : (i) Whether ratio indicated in Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank, AIR 2002 SC 2487 is applicable to Order 8, Rule 1. CPC so as to make these provisions directory in nature ? (ii) After closing the written statement under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC, can the Court invoke the provisions contained in Order 8, Rule 9 or Section 148, CPC ?

(2.) Contextual facts depict that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 (for short the plaintiff) instituted a civil suit in the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer Camp, Beawar seeking partition of the suit property. Service of summons was effected on the defendant petitioners (for short the defendants) on Feb. 12, 2003. Since the written statement could not be filed within the time prescribed by Order 8, Rule 1 and it could be filed on July 10, 2003 the learned Judge vide order dated August 2, 2003 directed to remove the written. statement out of the record. The writ petition bearing No. 5328/2003 preferred by the defendants was disposed on September 15, 2003 and defendants were granted liberty to file written statement in the trial Court with an application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC.

(3.) Pursuant to the above directions of this Court the defendants submitted application with a certified copy of the order in the Court of learned Additional District Judge but the learned Judge vide order dated Feb. 7, 2004 dismissed the application and declined to accept the written statement as subsequent pleadings. Impugning the order dated February 7, 2004 the defendants have preferred the instant writ petition WHETHER PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ORDER 8, RULE 1, CPC ARE DIRECTORY IN NATURE ?