IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3958 of 2007
1. Thanu Rana
2. Munshi Rana ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
Sahdeo Rana ... ... ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
For the Respondent :
11/15.01.2010
Counsel for the petitioners has appeared.
It appears that despite service of notice upon the sole Respondent, he has
neither appeared in person nor through the lawyer even today.
Heard counsel for the petitioners.
The grievance of the petitioners in this writ application is that for the mere
delay of 14 days in filing the written statement, the learned court below had refused
to accept the petitioners’ written statement filed by them in the suit pending before
the court below, vide Title Suit No. 26 of 2006.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned court below by its
impugned order, while rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for accepting the written
statement, had failed to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in
A.I.R. 2005 SC 3353, which was referred to by the petitioners and another judgment
of this Court reported in 2005 (2) J.C.R. 13 referred to and relied upon by the
petitioners to explain that the delay in filing the written statement, if properly
explained, can be condoned.
Learned counsel explains that the delay, as explained to the court below and
reiterated here, in filing the written statement, was that the draft of the written
statement dictated to the stenographer of the petitioners’ counsel, could not be
delivered in time after typing due to intervening X-Mas holidays and due to the
absence of the concerned stenographer, the written statement could not be finally
prepared and filed within the time. Learned counsel submits that the delay was not
occasioned by the petitioners themselves, since they had already submitted their
relevant instructions to their lawyer and the lapse had occurred only on account of
the lawyer’s stenographer and to some extent, due to intervening vacations.
Learned counsel adds further that merely because of the delay of 14 days in
filing the written statement, the plaintiffs did not suffer any serious prejudice
whatsoever.
I have gone through the impugned order, I find that the petitioners’ prayer for
acceptance of the written statement was refused only on the ground that the
petitioners had delayed in filing and did not file the same within the period of 90
days, as stipulated under the law. Learned court below has also observed that the
petitioners have not offered any cogent explanation for the delay in filing the written
statement.
As it appears, the explanation as offered by the petitioners for the delay, ought
to have been considered by the learned court below in proper perspective and in the
context of the fact that the mere delay of 14 days would not have caused any serious
prejudice to the other party. Even if the delay in filing the written statement had
caused some detriment to the plaintiff in the suit, such detriment could very well
have been compensated by imposing costs upon the petitioners/defendants.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders
dated 08.02.2007 (Annexure-1) and 07.06.2007 (Annexure-4) passed by the Sub-
Judge- IV, Koderma in Title Suit No. 26 of 2006 are hereby quashed. Learned court
below shall accept the written statement filed by the petitioners, though making such
acceptance, subject to the petitioners depositing cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Manish