ANIL DEY Vs. ANAND MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the original defendants of Title Suit No. 63 of 2009, challenging the order passed by the Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat, dated 9th August, 2010 in Title Suit No. 63 of 2009, whereby, the present petitioners, who are original defendants, have not been allowed to file written statement, because of the provisions of Order VIII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also looking to the dispute between the parties in Title Suit No. 63 of 2009, the written statement, filed by the petitioners (original defendants), though there is some delay, ought to have been taken on record by imposing some cost by the trial court. It further appears that there is a delay of 165 days. The highest delay, as per the learned counsel for the original plaintiff, is 165 days. Even if this delay is accepted as it is (dispute is raised by the learned counsel for the original defendants that there is delay of only 59 days), then also the delay ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice and looking to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reported in (2005)4 SCC 480 [: 2005 (4) JLJR (SC) 1] (Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors.) as well as (2005) 6 SCC 344 [: 2005 (4) JLJR (SC)169] (Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India). The provisions of Order VIII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are procedural In nature and not mandatory.

(3.) THIS writ petition is accordingly, allowed and disposed of.