JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
1. Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 are the Resident Editor and Publisher of the daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’.
2. A news item was published in the daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’, in its issue dated 21st of October, 2003 containing several allegations levelled by defendant No. 1 Gulshan Ajmani, a former Member of Legislative Assembly against the plaintiff. Plaintiff asserting that those allegations are false and motivated, filed T.S. No. 79 of 2004 for damage of a sum of Rs. 50 crore impleading Gulshan Ajmani as defendant No. 1 and the Resident Editor and Publisher of ‘Hindustan Times, as defendant nos. 2 and 3.
3. Summons were served on defendant No. 2 and 3 on 3.7.2004 and in pursuance of the summons, they appeared in the suit on 29.7.2004 and prayed for time to file the written statement. From time to time, the case was adjourned and they were granted time till 3.10.2004 for filing the written statement. On 8.10.2004, these defendants made prayer for a fortnight’s time to file the written statement, inter alia, on the ground that although written statement is ready but as those defendants are not personally present, same could not be filed. By reason of the impugned order, said prayer of the defendants-petitioner had been rejected on the ground that a period of more than 90 days had expired from the date of service of summons on them.
4. Mr. K.N. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that in case extra ordinary cause is shown, nothing prevents the Court from granting further time to file the written statement. He points out that these defendants are Editor and Publisher of the daily newspaper and were away from the city and in such circumstance, the prayer made by them to file the written statement within a fortnight, ought to have been allowed. In support, of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 9 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
9.- Order 8 Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the Court and also does not specifically take away the power of the Court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order 8 Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order 8 Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases, causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and the petitioners approaching the Court for quick relief and also the serious inconvenience of the Court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice burried.
5. He also points out that the written statement can be accepted beyond the specified period and defendant may be put to terms. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Md. Mustekim Mian v. Mohamad Hussain 2005 (1) PLJR 521 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the judgment which read as follows:
4.xxx- Order VI Rule 1 is specific on the point which says that it should be filed within 90 days. However, it is a procedural law and it is always used in aid of justice. Moreover, petitioners were not debarred from filing written statement earlier.
KTO
5.-Thus the civil revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,500/- to the opposite party and filing of receipt in proof of payment within a period of six weeks from today. xxx
6. Despite service of notice on the opposite party, nobody has chosen to appear on their behalf.
7. I am of the opinion that justice delayed may amount to justice denied but justice hurried may in some cases, amount to justice burried.
8. In the present case, defendants-petitioners have stated that the written statement is ready and because of absence of the defendants personally, it could not be filed and accordingly, a fortnight’s time was prayed for. In the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge ought to have acceded to their prayer.
9. Petitioner depositing a Bank Draft of Rs. 11000/- in the name of the plaintff in the court within two weeks from the next date fixed in the case and filing the written statement within the said period, same be accepted. The Bank Draft shall be handed over to the plaintiff by the court.
10. This application is accordingly allowed, the order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 12, Patna in T.S. No. 79 of 2004 subject to above is set aside. No cost.