IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 662 of 2010
Sharad Kumar ...... Petitioner
Versus
Din Bandhu and another ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav
For the Respondents : M/s Manoj Tandon, Navin Kumar Singh
th
03/Dated: 28 April, 2011
1.
The present writ petition has been preferred by original defendant no. 1 in
T.(D). S No. 67 of 2007 and he is challenging the order passed by the trial
court, namely, learned Sub JudgeVII, Deoghar dated 21st January, 2010,
whereby, the written statement filed by defendant no. 1 was not taken on
record mainly on the ground of delay of approximately four months.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as looking to the reasons for delay in filing the
written statement preferred by defendant no. 1, it ought to have been taken on
record. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash
Vs. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 as well as in the case of
Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India reported in (2005)
6 SCC 344 that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is procedural
in nature and not mandatory.
3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the delay ought to have been condoned by the
trial court and, therefore, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by
learned Sub JudgeVII, Deoghar dated 21st January, 2010 in T.(D).S No. 67 of
2007. I also hereby direct the petitioner (original defendant no. 1) to file his
written statement. The written statement filed by original defendant no. 1 is
ordered to be taken on record in T.(D).S No. 67 of 2007. Looking to the time
already consumed after filing of the suit, I hereby direct the trial court to
expedite the hearing of T.(D).S No. 67 of 2007.
4. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay/