MOSSTT GYANU SHARMA Vs. HARI RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for setting aside the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by the learned Sub Judge -I, Chaibasa in Title Partition Suit No. T.S.(P) No. 8 of 2006 by which a prayer made by the petitioner/defendant for extension of time to enable her to file her written statement, has been rejected and the petitioner has been debarred from filing the written statement.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff would strongly contest the stand taken by the petitioner as being incorrect, misleading and misconceived. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary appearing for the Respondent/Plaintiff would explain that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. has not been correctly explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as the provisions declare that the defendant is supposed to file his/her written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons and not from the date of his/her appearance in the Court. Learned Counsel further submits that the suit before the Trial Court being a Partition Suit and the parties belonging to the same family, the pendency of the suit before the Court below was very much within the knowledge of the petitioner from the very beginning and the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally failed to appear in the suit only to delay the proceedings. The suit was filed way back in the early months of 2006 and the proceedings had reached almost the stage of conclusion and it was only at the stage when the trial Court was about to deliver its judgement, that on the pen -ultimate date the petitioner filed her appearance.