SHARAD KUMAR Vs. DIN BANDHU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by original Defendant No. 1 in T.(D). S No. 67 of 2007 and he is challenging the order passed by the trial court, namely, learned Sub Judge VII, Deoghar dated 21st January, 2010, whereby, the written statement filed by Defendant No. 1 was not taken on record mainly on the ground of delay of approximately four months.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as looking to the reasons for delay in filing the written statement preferred by Defendant No. 1, it ought to have been taken on record. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. reported in : (2005) 4 SCC 480 as well as in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India reported in : (2005) 6 SCC 344 that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is procedural in nature and not mandatory.

(3.) THE writ petition is allowed and disposed of.