The court ruled that delays in filing written statements can be excused under exceptional circumstances, such as judicial custody and pandemics, interpreting procedural rules as directory rather than mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4.

2. It has been pointed out that the notice upon opposite party nos.5 and 6, who were the proforma opposite parties, have been dispensed with by the earlier order dated 18.11.2024.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Koderma in Original Suit No.79 of 2019, by which the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the prayer to accept the written statement along with the counter claim filed by the defendant No. 3.

4. Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his prayer for filing written statement and he is not pressing the counter-claim prayer.

5. Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties/plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 79 of 2019 in the court of learned Sub-Judge-I, Koderma against the defendants praying therein a decree for execution of the right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands and for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 06.12.2013 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant nos.2 and 3 are illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. He submits that the prayer was also made for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. He further submits that the summon in the said suit was issued and the petitioner put his appearance in the suit on 20.02.2020. He submits that the petitioner was arrested on 14.08.2020 in connection with N.D.P.S Case No. 01 of 2020 and since then he was in judicial custody. He then submits that thereafter the written statement and the counter claim have been filed, which has been rejected by the learned Court by the impugned order. He submits that due to Covid-19 also such delay has occurred. He further submits that the said written statement was filed on 04.03.2022, but the learned court has rejected the same.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4 vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that there is much delay and no sufficient explanation is made, in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. He relied in the case of “Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through His LR” reported in (2024) INSC 26.

Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been pleased to hold that in absence of any cogent reason delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. On this ground, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

7. The Court has gone through the materials on record including the averments made in the CMP as well as order of learned Court. It is an admitted position that the suit was instituted in the year 2019 and petitioner herein has put his appearance before the learned Court on 20.02.2020. He was arrested on 14.08.2020, as disclosed in para-8 of the CMP, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020 and he has filed the written statement on 04.03.2022. In the meanwhile, the Covid-19 pandemic was there and the Hon’ble Supreme Court even in the statutory period of limitation has extended in one of the suo-motu case. The Hon’ble High Court has also passed the appropriate order at that time for condoning of the delay. The learned Court has relied in the case of “Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors.” reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and rejected the filing of the written statement on the ground that in a routine manner, delay cannot be condoned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 30 and 46(v) in the case of ‘Kailash (Supra)’ has held as follows:-

“30. It is also to be noted that though the power of the Court under the proviso appended to Rule 1 of Order VIII is circumscribed by the words "shall not be late