The provisions for filing written statements are directory, allowing for late submissions if satisfactory reasons for delay are provided.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Notices were issued upon opposite party nos. 1 to 10. Learned counsel Mr. Ashish Kumar appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3. Notice upon opposite party no.4 has been received by his wife, notice upon opposite party nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are deemed to be validly served, as pointed out by the office and notice upon opposite party no. 10 was hanged on the door and, as such, notice upon opposite party nos. 4 to 10 are deemed to be validly served. The matter was adjourned on 12.07.2024, 27.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 17.12.2024 and in spite of that, nobody has appeared on behalf of them and in view of that, this petition is being heard on merit in absence of opposite party nos. 4 to 10.

2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Seraikella in T.P.S./O.S. No.34 of 2016, whereby, the petitioner has been debarred from filing the written statement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit, the petitioner has not received any summon or notice. He submits that by way of paper publication, it has come into the knowledge of the petitioner about pendency of the suit and in view of that, the petitioner appeared before the Court after obtaining the plaint from the plaintiffs and on the second date the written statement was filed, however, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same on the ground of long delay under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. He further submits that in absence of plaint, no written statement can be filed and written statement was filed after obtaining the same when it has come into knowledge of the petitioner about the pendency of the suit from paper publication. He also submits that the said provision is not mandatory and it is directory and it has been held in several judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts. He refers paragraph 26 of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku & others, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480, which reads as under:

“26. The text of Order VIII, Rule 1, as it stands now, reads as under : -

"1. Written statement. - The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons."

Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered and it will be prejudiced to the petitioner if the petitioner will not be allowed to file written statement in the suit. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that there is long delay and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly passed the order. He further submits that without taking leave of the Court, two written statements have been filed by the petitioner and the learned Court has rejected the same. He further submits that limitation petition for condoning the delay was not filed and in view of that, the order is correct. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Atcom Technologies Limited v. Y.A. Chunawala and Company and others, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639 and submits that the case of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 is fully covered in view of that judgment and, as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed.

6. It is an admitted position that by the impugned ord