PUNERJEE Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order dated 1-6-74 of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun ordering that the proceedings be taken ex-parte against the petitioner for failure of filing written statement.

(2.) MR. R. P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the lower court should not have taken a drastic view and restrained it self from directing the proceedings to be taken ex-parte when the defendant pointed out to the court that the copy of the plaint given to the defendant was defective one. MR. Goyal's contention is that it would have been in the interest of justice to grant time directing the plaintiff for filing the legible copy. According to MR. Goyal, great in-justice has been done, as he has been debarred simply on the ground that he insisted for getting legible and correct copy. It is also submitted that such orders could not have been passed under Order 8, Rule 10 C. P. C. He relies open the judgment reported in A. I. R. 1936 Bombay P. 470.

(3.) IT would be convenient to consider order 8, rule 1 C. P. C. and Rule 10 C. P. C. at this stage. Order, 8 rule 10 C. P. C. reads as under: - "r. 10 Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or made such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drown up. "