The central legal point established in the judgment is the justification for condoning delay in filing written statements under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, and the need to resolve disputes on merits rather than technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APPL. 9995/2023 (for exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 329/2023

3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 18.01.2023 passed in CS No. 216/2020 titled as “Ketan Dwivedi vs. Ashok Pratap Singh”, whereby the learned Trial Court has taken on record the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant beyond the stipulated period of 120 days.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the sanctity attached to the timelines mentioned under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 in respect of even ordinary suits has to be adhered to strictly and cannot be violated under any condition whatsoever.

5. Learned counsel submits that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Court under Section 148 of the CPC itself is circumscribed to the maximum period of 30 days and definitely not beyond that. Learned counsel submits that having regard to the fact that the learned Trial Court has permitted the written statement of the respondent/defendant to be taken after condoning a delay on 102 days in filing the written statement itself is contrary to the provisions under Section 148 of CPC, 1908.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the time period itself is wrongly calculated and according to him, it should have been 133 days.

7. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.N.Jadi and Brothers and Ors. vs. Subhashchadra in Civil Appeal No. 2925/2007 rendered on 10.07.2007, whereby the attention of the Court was drawn to para no. 21 to submit that the Supreme Court had categorically taken into consideration the fact that enormous delay in disposals of the trials was being caused due to the inordinate delay in filing the written statements on behalf of the defendants.

8. Learned counsel submits that being anxious of such delays being caused, the Supreme Court had directed that the power of extension of time granted to the Court under Section 148 of the CPC was curtailed by the outer limit of 30 days from the date originally fixed was granted.

9. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid facts as well as the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Jadi (supra), learned counsel submits that the written statement should not and ought not to have been taken on record and prays that the same be taken off record and cost imposed for the delay in trial that has been caused due to the delay in filing of the written statement.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submits that the written statement, no doubt, was filed with a delay of 102 days, however, by an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, the respondent/defendant had given a justifiable and reasonable cause as to why the written statement was not filed within the stipulated period.

11. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 placed at page 20 of the present petition to submit that since the dispute raised by the petitioner/plaintiff was in respect of title and so as to enable him to defend his own case, he had to obtain the titled documents from one Mr. G.S. Jhalini, who was supposed to be the co-owner of the property and was at that point in time almost 90 years old.

12. Learned counsel submits that since Mr. Jhalini was very old and was not maintaining proper health and could not make himself readily available for comments, the delay had occurred.

13. Learned counsel submits that the delay had occurred due to the aforesaid reason and the delay cause was unintentional and not deliberate.

14. Learned counsel submits that the written statement can be filed and taken on record by the Court even beyond the period stipulated in the Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC for sufficient causes which can be shown by a party.

15. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order did in fact taken in to account the versio