NARAYAN CHANDRA MAHATO Vs. SARJU MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is initiated by the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff challenges the order by Trial Court refusing to pass an order under Order XIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since in the case, for more than eight years, no written statement was filed by the defendants which led to the plaintiff filing the application for the relief aforesaid. After the amendment by amendment Act, 2002 of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code, the plaintiff made another application to debar the defendants from filing a written statement. While his applications were pending, the defendants filed a written statement, even without a petition, seeking leave to file it or for its acceptance. The Trial Court proceeded to accept that written statement, rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff to pass an order in terms of Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) IT is stated that the subsequent application under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code after its amendment is still pending.

(3.) ALL the same, all that has now happened is that the written statement filed by the defendants was taken on file. After all, no Court would like to dispose of a suit ex parte or without giving the defendant an opportunity to put forward his defence. Only based on this larger perspective, I decline to interfere with the order of Court below. But I must express my strong disapproval of the attitude of the Court below in not ensuring that the written statement is filed by the defendants within a reasonable time of entering appearance in the suit. Of course, now that aspect is controlled by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as introduced by the Amendment Act, 2002. The Courts are expected to implement that Rule alongwith Rule 1 -A and ensure that written statements are filed within a reasonable time. The attention of the Trial Court is invited to these provisions and the need to insist on the filing of written statement in time. Similarly, production of document in time, as stipulated, should also be insisted on. The provisions of Order XIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other rules regarding production of documents, list of witnesses and settlement of issues etc. should be strictly implemented. The Court should take care to ensure that it is not alleged of protracting the proceedings at the behest of counsel without reference to the inconvenience of the litigants. The Trial Court is directed to keep in mind there relevant aspects while dealing with suits.