LAXMAN MISTRY Vs. GOVIND DEO SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants have preferred this writ against the order dated 04.01.2005 passed by learned Munsif, Giridih in Title Suit No. 193 of 2003 whereby the court below has refused to accept the written statement filed by the defendants filed along with other defendants and also prayed to accept the written statement filed by the defendants.

(2.) It is not necessary to state the pleading of the plaintiff as the written statement filed by the defendants have been refused to be accepted by the court below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to non service of summon on the defendant nos.2, 10, 19, 20, 25, 28, 29, 33, 42, 43 and 44, the court below directed the plaintiff to take steps for substituted service of notice and thereafter notice was published in the local newspaper on 09.06.2004 and in the notice, direction was given to the defendants to appear in the court below on 14.06.2004 but due to some unavoidable reasons, the above defendants appeared in court on 04.10.2004 and filed their written statement which was kept on record by the order of the court. Learned counsel further submitted that the provisions as contained in Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. is not mandatory rather directory and the Hon'ble Supreme court have already settled that court is not barred to condone the delay if some reasonable cause has been shown in filing written statement beyond statutory period of 90 days. Hence, the order of not accepting the written statement is bad in law and is fit to be set aside.