JUDGMENT :

Inspite of service of notice, respondent did not turn up to contest this case.

2. The instant application under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.05.2017, passed in original Suit No. 599 of 2015 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, V, Ranchi (hereinafter called the impugned order), whereby and whereunder the defendant no.1/petitioner no.1 has been debarred from filing written statement.

3. In compliance of previous order dated 24.07.2023, no fresh vakalatnama has been filed by the respondent to contest the case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

5. It is submitted that on 19.09.2016 an application under Order XXII Rule 10 A CPC was filed by present petitioner/defendant no. 1 intimating the court regarding death of defendant no. 2, who died on 17.08.2016. Thereafter, dates were fixed on 26.05.2017 for filing rejoinder by the plaintiff but no rejoinder was filed. Petitioner presented his application before the learned trial court praying therein to file written statement copy of which was duly served upon respondent no.1, but the learned trial court refused to take the same on record and passed the impugned order without adverting to the real State of affairs including circumstances of the petitioner’s inability and other reasonable grounds. The impugned order was passed in most mechanical manner without assigning any valid reasons for not deciding the application under order 22 Rule 10A CPC rather passing the order of debarring the petitioner from filing his written statement, hence impugned order is erroneous, devoid of reasons and cryptic in nature which is fit to be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to place on record his written statement and the suit may be heard on merits.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid point of argument and on perusal of record, it appears that suit was instituted on 16.10.2015. After admission and service of notice for the first time, defendant no. 1 and 2 appeared on 18.07.2016 and filed an application for further time for filing their written statement. Again on next date, i.e. 12.08.2016 prayer for time to file written statement was allowed. On 19.09.2016 petition under Order XXI Rule 10 A was filed by the present petitioner informing the court about the death of his brother, (Defendant No.2) and necessary action may be taken by the plaintiff. The Court allowed the plaintiff to file rejoinder. Thereafter, case was transferred to another Court, where rejoinder was filed on 23. 02.2017 and there was no direction for filing written statement by the present petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.05.2017.

7. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 were debarred from filing written statement inspite of communication about death of defendant No. 2 and Plaintiff was directed to take proper steps fixing the case on 03.07.2017 for further steps by plaintiff.

8. The impugned order is self-explanatory that inspite of pendency of application under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC and receipt of its rejoinder, it was not disposed of and in spite of communication about death of the respondent no. 2, he was also debarred from filing written statement. It is obvious that the written statement was not filed by the petitioner within time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

9. In the case of Atcom Technologies Ltd. Vs. Y.A. Chunawala & Co. reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“19. It has to be borne in mind that as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendant is obligated to present a written statement of his defence within thirty days from the date of service of summons. Proviso thereto enables the Court to extend the period up to ninety days from the date of service of summons for sufficient reasons. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:

“1. Written statement.—The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of su