The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the court to allow filing of the written statement beyond the specified period under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Article. 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nawanshahar (for brevity, the Tribunal) striking of the defence of the petitioner-Insurance Company on the ground that already number of opportunities have been availed by it and period of more than 90 days has expired as provided by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A perusal of interlocutory orders passed on 13.5.2002, 1.6.202 and 16.8.2002 would show that opportunities have been afforded to the petitioner-Insurance Company to file the written statement. On 16.8.2002 cost of Rs. 350/- was also imposed for adjourning the case to 31.8.2002 making it clear that no further opportunity shall be granted. The impugned order was passed on 31.8.2002 and the defence of the petitioner-Insurance Company was struck of.

2. Mr. Kamal Kant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company has argued that Mr. C.S. Bhalla, who was the Divisional Manager, has died and the new incumbent was not vested with the power to sign the written statement on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance Company. For that reason delay, in filing the written statement has occurred. Therefore, the learned counsel requests for one opportunity to file the written statement which has now been signed by the successor of Mr. C.S. Bhalla.

3. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has argued that for no fault of the claimants they have been dragged to this Court and have been made to suffer financially. The learned counsel has also pointed out that even time has been wasted which would cause delay in disposal of the claim of the claimant-respondents which would have been avoided by the petitioner-Insurance Company.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that his petition deserves to be allowed because in the facts and circumstances of this case, a lenient view is required to be taken. It has been established as a fact before the Tribunal that Mr. C.S. Bhalla, the Divisional Manager who was entrusted with the power to sign the written statement had expired. The new incumbent although was appointed as Divisional Manager, yet he was not vested with the power of signing the written statement on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance Company. Moreover, the written statement would be necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised before the Tribunal which will serve the interest of justice. The petitioner-Insurance Company can be saddled with costs on account of delay occasioned by it for filing the written statement belatedly.

5. It is true that under Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended) (for brevity, the Code), a provision has been made for filing of written statement of his defence within period of 30 days from the date of service of summons on the defendant. The proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code makes it mandatory that if period of 30 days has expired and no written statement has been filed, then the defendant may be permitted to file the same for the reasons to be recorded in writing on any later date i.e. after 30 days. However, in no case, the written statement could be filed after the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons. The aforementioned provision has come in force w.e.f. 1.7.2002 as Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (for brevity, 1999 Act) and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (for brevity, 2002 Act) have been notified from that date. It has further has been made clear by the 2002 Act that the written statement filed before 1.7.2002 would not be affected by the amendment. In other words, the written statement which has been filed before 1.7.2002 would not be hit by the period of 90 days stipulated in Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code. In the instant case, the claim petition was file