The provision for filing a written statement is directory and not mandatory, but it cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the legislative intent meaningless.

Suneet Kumar, J. –

The defendant/applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 16 December 2015 passed by the Revisional Court in Civil Revision No. 171 of 2015 arising from an order passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No. 298/2010 (Satish Kumar and another v. Dharamveer Singh), whereby the application to recall the order dated 18 October 2011 to permit the applicant/defendant to file written statement has been rejected. The Reivisional Court in the impugned order noted as follows: -

"From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that on 8.5.2010 service on defendant was effective personally. Thereafter on 19.8.2010 the defendant appeared in the Court and on 20.10.2010 he was given opportunity to file WS and since the defendant did not file his WS, by order dated 29.11.2010, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the defendant. The defendant moved an application for recalling the ex-parte order on 15.12.2010 which was allowed on 3.2.2011 on Rs. 100/- cost and 22.2.2011 was fixed as the next date but again on 22.2.2011, 10.3.2011, 10.5.2011 and 13.9.2011 defendant moved adjournments, which were allowed but the defendant does not filed his WS. On 13.9.2011 defendant was given last opportunity to file his WS on payment of cost of Rs. 200/- but neither the defendant filed WS nor paid the cost to the plaintiff. As such by order dated 18.10.2011 defendant's right to file WS was closed and the case was proceeded ex-parte against him. The defendant against moved application 26C dated 19.12.2011 for recalling the above ex-parte order which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 2.5.2011."

2. The Revisional Court rejected the application after placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in Salem Advocates Bar Association Tamilnadu v. Union of India [ (2005) 6 SCC 344 ] and Kailash v. Nankhu [ AIR 2005 SC 2441 ].

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant may be given an opportunity to file written statement.

4. I have perused the application to recall the order, it transpires from the application that no exceptional circumstances or grounds have been pleaded, as to what prevented the applicant from filing the written statement despite several opportunities.

5. The Court would refrain to exercise its inherent power under Section 151 CPC when there is a specific provision for filing of the written statement, though the provision of Order 8, Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory but it cannot be interpreted in such a manner so as to render the legislative intent to naught.

6. The applicant has failed to point out any exceptional circumstances that prevented the applicant from filing the written statement.

7. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

8. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. No cost.

Petition dismissed.