SHRI DWARKADAS JALAN MEMORIAL PUBLIC CHARITY TRUST, A PUBLIC TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LUBY CIRCULAR ROAD, DHANBAD, P.O. & P.S. Vs. RAMESH KUMAR JALAN, SON OF LATE RADHE KRISHNA JALAN, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 501, SKYLARK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has questioned the legality of the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.20 of 2014 whereby and where under the order dated 21.11.2014 by which the defendants-respondents no.2 and 3 were debarred from filing written statement has been recalled and the written statement of those two defendants have been accepted.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, in short, is that at the instance of the plaintiff title suit bearing no.20 of 2014 was filed for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over schedule A land and also for declaration that sale deed dated 10.04.2013 is void, illegal, collusive, fraudulent, shame and has not conferred any title in respect of and any possession over schedule B upon the defendants second set and for permanent injunction. Upon notice, the defendant nos.1 and 2 appeared in court on 05.01.2014 and prayed for time for filing written statement. Where after the case was fixed for 06.09.2014 but as no written statement was filed, the case was again fixed for 21.11.2014 for filing written statement. On 21.11.2014, defendant nos.1 and 2 again filed time petition to file written statement but the same was rejected by the court and the defendant nos.1 and 2 were debarred from filing written statement. The case was fixed for 05.01.2015. On 05.01.2015, defendant nos.1 and 2 filed written statement with the petition to recall the order dated 21.11.2014 by which they were debarred and accept the written statement. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the above petition and by impugned order dated 20.03.2015 after recalling earlier order dated 21.11.2014 by which the defendant nos.1 and 2 were debarred, the court accepted the written statement on payment of cost of Rs.3000.00 to the plaintiff. The defendants deposited the said amount but being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed this writ application.

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr. Sahani appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as bad in law, seriously contended that the court below erred in accepting the written statement after recalling the order of debar though there was no satisfactory reason for invoking the discretionary power of this court. It was also contended that the period prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') is 90 days for filing written statement and though the court has every jurisdiction to enlarge the said statutory period but on showing sufficient reason for delay. However in the instant case, no plausible explanation has been given for recall of the order dated 21.11.2014 and accepting the written statement, as such the order impugned is fit to be quashed.