Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
G.N.Prasad, J.
Bihar State Electricity Board
Versus
New Gobindpur Coal Co.Pvt.Ltd.
Civil Revision No. 707 of 1971 ;
Decided On : JULY 20, 1972
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER VIII RULE 1 - WRITTEN STATEMENT - FILING - TIME - FIRST HEARING - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - LIMITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, defendant No. 1 in a suit, filed a written statement on the 4th June, 1971, after several adjournments and extensions of time granted by the court for filing the written statement. The trial court declined to accept the written statement, holding that the first hearing of the suit had already taken place and the petitioner had lost its right to file a written statement at or before the first hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had failed to file its written statement at or before the first hearing of the suit within the meaning of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore, the trial court was not bound to accept the written statement filed on the 4th June, 1971.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had filed its written statement at or before the first hearing of the suit within the meaning of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to decline to accept the written statement filed by the petitioner on the 4th June, 1971?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the expression "the first hearing" in Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to mean either the date fixed for the settlement of issues or the date fixed for the final hearing. 2. The court held that the petitioner had lost its right to file a written statement at or before the first hearing of the suit, as the date fixed for the first hearing had already passed and the suit was adjourned for further hearing under Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The court further held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to decline to accept the written statement filed by the petitioner on the 4th June, 1971, as it was not filed at or before the first hearing of the suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's revision application and upheld the order of the trial court declining to accept the written statement filed by the petitioner.
G.N.Prasad, J.
1. This application in revision is directed against the order of the learned Third Additional Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad dated the 4th June, 1971, declining to accept the written statement which the petitioner had filed in Title Suit No. 99 of 1969, wherein it was impleaded as defendant No. 1. The relevant facts are as follows: The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs (Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2) on the 21st July, 1969. On the same day the plaint was admitted and summonses were ordered to be issued to the defendants fixing the 26th August, 1969, for settlement of issues. Further, on the same day, upon a petition of the plaintiffs, the defendants were called upon to show cause why an ad interim injunction be not issued against them, and in the meantime an order of ad interim injunction was passed. The summonses as also the service report of the notices in the injunc- tion matter were received after service and the order of ad interim injunction was confirmed on the 1st August, 1969. Until then the defendants had not appeared, which they did on the 26th August, 1969. On the 26th August, 1969, the Court fixed 26th September, 1969, as the date for filing of the written statement and for settlement of issues. On the 26th September, 1969, at the instance of the defendants, the Court fixed 9th December, 1969, for filing written statement and for settlement of issues. On the 9th December, 1969, the defendants prayed for time to file written statement, which was extended to the 20th January, 1970, on payment of Rs. 8/- as cost. The time was further extended to the 10th March, 1970, on payment of Rs. 10.00 as cost. On the 10th March, 1970, the defendants prayed for further time to file their written statement, and that was allowed until the 22nd April, 1970, on payment of Rs. 12/- as cost. On the 22nd April, 1970, the time for filing the written statement was further extended to the 5th June, 1970, on payment of Rs. 12/- as cost. On the 5th June, 1970, the defendants again applied for time for filing their written statement, upon which the Court passed the following order:
"..... To 9-7-1970 for filing W. S. on payment of Rs. 12/- as cost. Defendants (must) file W. S. on the date fixed failing which the case will be taken up for ex parte hearing on the date fixed."
No written statement, however, was filed by the defendants as directed by order dated the 5th June, 1970, and the defendants prayed for further time to file written statement, whereupon the suit was ordered to be put up on the 26th August, 1970 for settlement of issues. On the 26th August, 1970, the following order was passed:
"Plaintiff files hazri. Defendants pray for time to file W. S. To 25-9-70 for filing W. S. and settlement of issues."
On the 25th September, 1970, at the prayer of the defendants, the date for filing the written statement was extended to the 24th November, 1970 on payment of Rs. 8/- as cost, which date was also fixed for the disposal of the suit. On the 24th November, 1970, the following order was passed:
"Plaintiff files hazri. Defendants again pray for time to file W. S. To 3-12-1970 for filing W. S. on payment of Rs. 10.00 as cost as a last chance failing which the suit will be heard ex parte on the date fixed."
On the 3rd December, 1970, the defendants again prayed for time to file written statement, whereupon the 17th December, 1970, was fixed for filing written statement as a last chance failing which the suit will be heard ex parte on the date fixed. No written statement was filed by the defendants even on the 17th December, 1970, but on that day the defendants filed a petition praying that the plaint should be rejected or, in the alternative, further proceeding in the suit should be stayed. The case was, therefore, adjourn- ed to the 28th January, 1971, for hearing. After three more adjournments, the Court fixed the 19th April, 1971, for hearing. On the 19th April, 1971, the plaintiff filed hazri, but the defendants to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
