The time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, allowing courts discretion to extend deadlines based on case circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VIII, Hazaribag in Original Suit (Title) No.77/2021 by which the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and debarred the petitioners from filing written statement.

3. I.A. No. 6242 of 2024 has been filed for confining the prayer with regard to debarring the petitioners from filing written statement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not pressing the prayer with regard to quashing of the entire order dated 01.09.2022 and they are ready to contest the suit on merit. He submits that in view of debarring the petitioners, their right are withheld in contesting the suit on merit and in view of that, the prayer made in the I.A. may kindly be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6 opposed the prayer and submits that in light of Order II Rule 3 of the CPC, if the petitioners are omitting any relief, they are not entitled for further relief.

6. By the impugned order dated 01.09.2022, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as well as debarred the petitioners from filing written statement. By way of filing the said I.A., the petitioners are now confining their prayer with regard to debarring them from filing written statement only and they are aggrieved with later part of the order dated 01.09.2022 and now the petitioners have chosen to contest the suit on merit. The objection raised by the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6 by referring Order II Rule 3 of the CPC is not available in view of the fact that if any right is being waived by the petitioners that is at their own risk and, as such, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed.

7. Accordingly, I.A. No.6242 of 2024 is disposed of.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said suit was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest of the schedule property comprising of the pieces of land registered under Khata No.70, Plot Nos.392, 660, 677 and 954 situated at Village- Napokalan, Thana No.114, Anchal- Barkagaon, District- Hazaribag. He submits that the petitioners are defendants in the said suit and they have filed petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which has been rejected by the impugned order. He further submits that now the petitioners have decided to contest the suit on merit. He also submits that if the written statement is not allowed to be filed, that will prejudice the case of the petitioners. He then submits that Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is directory and not mandatory, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 .

9. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6 opposed the prayer and submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the said order and in view of that, there is no illegality in the order in light of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

10. It is an admitted position that the Original Suit (Title) No.77/2021 was instituted for declaration of right, title and