The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for filing written statements is not mandatory in non-commercial suits and the court has the discretion to extend the time, as per the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18th August, 2014 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, at Malda in connection with Partition Suit No. 162 of 2007, the petitioner/defendant has preferred this instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. By passing the impugned order learned Trial Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and 151 of CPC dated 04.02.2012 with a prayer for review of the order passed by that Trial Court dated 11.03.2011.

3. By passing the order dated 11.03.2011 the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the defendant/petitioner to accept the written statement after referring the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kailash vs. Nanhku and Others and in case of R. N. Jadi and Bros. vs. Subhaschandra. In the said order learned Trial Court did not believe the explanation of delay given by the defendant in filing the written statement and rejected the application filed by the defendant/petitioner to accept the written statement.

4. Despite service affected upon the opposite party none appears to contest the present application.

5. Mrs. Shila Sarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits before the Court interalia that after getting summon of the suit from the Trial Court the defendant/petitioner entered his appearance in the said suit and after taking time for filing written statement this petitioner on 30th November, 2007 filed written statement along with two applications one for withdrawing the suit from ex-parte hearing board and other application showing cause on the ground stated therein for not filing the written statement within the stipulated time as provided in the amended provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. The grounds taken by the defendant/petitioner for not filing the written statement within the stipulated period is that he was not keeping good health and as such could not collect all the necessary papers and documents for the purpose of filing written statement and for such reason the written statement could not be filed within the time frame as provided in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. It is further submitted that as the written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner was not accepted by the Trial Court by passing an order dated 11.03.2011 he filed another petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of CPC with a prayer for review of the said order but the prayer for review of earlier order dated 11.03.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court was rejected by passing the impugned order.

6. By passing the impugned order, learned Trial Court held that the petition filed on behalf of the defendant/petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code does not attract the grounds as enumerated in the said provision for which the application filed by the petitioner with a prayer for review of the order dated 11.03.2021 could be entertained. As per submission of the learned Counsel that the learned Trial Court acted illegally in not exercising the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC when due to resolution of the local bar the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not take any step in the suit and for which the petitioner cannot be blamed in any way.

7. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Court should be more liberal while interpreting the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC and should not be too harsh to strike off the defence of the defendants at very early stage in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kailash vs Nanhku.

8. Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for a time limit of a maximum of 120 days for filing written statements after the service of summons is complete. Whether it is mandatory or directory depends on the nature of the transaction or the subject matter o