(1.) In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 25-5-2004 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-V, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 20 of 2003, whereby the learned Court below has refused to accept the petitioners' written statement on the ground that the same has been filed after the delay of 18 days over and above the period of 90 days as prescribed under the law.
(2.) The petitioners' case is that although Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedures prescribes 90 days' time, yet, this Court in the case of Lalit Chandra Raisurana v. Arun Raisurana reported in 2004 (4) JLJR, 428 : (2004 AIR Jhar HCR 3188), has held that the Court has power to extend the period for filing written statement beyond 90 days, for further 30 days under the provision of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedures, if good cause is shown for the delay. In view of the said decision, the time for filing written statement can be extended upto 120 days from the date of receiving of summons /appearance of the defendants, as the case may be. According to the learned counsel the written statement of the petitioners has been filed within 120 days and they have shown good cause for the delay and that their case is entirely covered by the said decision of this Court. According to the learned counsel, the learned Court below has not recorded any just and proper reason for not considering the petitioners' explanation and refusing acceptance of the written statement. The petitioners stated that they shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the written statement is not accepted which, according to them, is filed within time in view of the decision of this Court in the said Lalit Chandra Raisurana's case.
(3.) Notice was issued in this case and the respondent has appeared through Mr. U. K. Choubey. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in reply to the petitioners' stand and submissions, urged that although this Court has held that the written statement can be filed within 120 days from the date of service of notice/date of appearance in the above referred case, yet since the defendants have not assigned any satisfactory reason for invoking the discretionary power by the Court below under the provision of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedures, the order has been legally and rightly passed and the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court.