SATISH CHANDRA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14. 2. 2005 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Baran whereby the application for taking the written statement filed on 28. 9. 2004 has been rejected on the ground that the provisions of Order-8 Rule-1 of C. P. C. are mandatory and in the application no reason has been assigned as to why the Court should ask him to file the written statement, whose aim is also to delay the proceedings.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit for partition of ancestral property described in para No. 1 of the plaint. The Trial Court has fixed the date 22. 9. 2004 for filing the written statement but on 22. 9. 2004 it was recorded that the service on the petitioner-defendant No. 1 was effected on 12. 3. 2004 and the written statement has not been filed. Thus, the same cannot be filed after 90 days. After recording the said part of the order- sheet, Shri Mahesh Prakash Gautam, Advocate filed the `vakalatnama' along with the written statement but neither the same was taken on record nor the date fixed for evidence i. e. , 6. 10. 2004 was changed. Subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order-8 Rule-1 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC for taking the written statement on record.

(3.) THE relevant order-sheets dated 25. 8. 2004, 13. 9. 2004 and 22. 9. 2004 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 25-8-2004 ***