The court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory, allowing written statements to be filed beyond prescribed delays in exceptional circumstances, particularly to serve the interest of justice.

Judgment :

BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.

1. This application is filed by defendants nos. 1A to 1D for the following order:

a) Delay if any in filing of the instant application be condoned;

b) Delay if any in filing the written statement by the defendant nos. 1A to 1D be condoned.

c) The time to file the written statement by the defendant nos. 1A to 1D in the aforesaid suit be extended by a period of 4(four) weeks.

d) Leave be granted to the defendant nos. 1A to 1D to verify, affirm and file the written statement within a period of 4(four) weeks from such order being passed.

e) Such other or further orders be passed as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners/Defendant no. 1A to 1D, that the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs herein on 8th April 2009. Immediately upon filing of the suit the plaintiffs took out an application being GA No. 1083 of 2009 for an order for appointment of Receiver to make inventory of the suit assets. Such application was heard and by an order dated 27th April the then advocate on record of the plaintiffs and defendants were appointed as joint receivers. It is further contended that since the order dated 27th April 2009 was passed the plaintiffs’ did not take any steps in the suit for years together till such time the matter appeared before this Court in the year 2016. For seven years the plaintiffs did not take any steps to pursue the suit before this Court. Other than taking out an application for substitution the plaintiffs did not take any steps.

3. It is contended that after expiry of 8 years the original defendant no. 1 took out an application being GA No. 2511 of 2016 praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground of non issuance of writ of summons for such a long period. In counter thereof the plaintiff no. 1 to 6, and 8B took out an application being GA. No. 3685 of 2016 inter alia praying for extension of the returnable date of the writ of summons and for appropriate direction of issuance of writ of summons on the defendants. The said applications were heard analogously and disposed by a common order dated 28th February 2017, thereby extending the returnable date of the writ of summons and allowing the plaintiffs to issue the writ of summons subject to the payment of costs assessed at Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the original defendant no-1 within a period of fortnight from the date of such order.

4. It is further contended that the writ of summons was finally issued on 20th March 2017 on the original defendant no.1 and was received by the original defendant no. 1 on 28th March 2017. The original defendant no. 1 was required to file the written statement within 28 days that is by 25th April 2017.

5. It is also contended that original defendant no. 1 was an octogenarian lady, and there were various litigations going on by and between the plaintiffs and the defendants before this Court as well as before Company Law Board. Upon receipt of the summons the original defendant no. 1 appointed Mr. Debdeep Sinha as the advocate-on-record and entered appearance in the suit. The said advocate-on-record was instructed to draft and take steps for settling and filing the written statement within the time stipulated. Accordingly the written statement was drafted, settled and made ready within the stipulated time.

6. It is contended that the defendant no-1 being an octogenarian lady was ill and could not affirm the written statement within stipulated time and could not take steps for filing an application for extension of time to file written statement the health of the original defendant no.1 did not improve within time and s