Back
2009 (1) U.D., 461
High Court of Uttarakhand
Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.
Suraj Chauhan and another.................Petitioners
Vs.
Smt. Pushpa Prasad and others...........Respondents
Writ Petition No. 312 of 2009 (M/S), WITH Writ Petition No. 313 of 2009 (M/S)
Decided on : 03-03-2009.
Writ Petitions - Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 1 - 30 days, 90 days - Summary Judgment
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of written statements in two separate original suits. The defendants failed to file the written statements within the prescribed time, leading to the rejection of their applications for accepting the written statements on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had not shown exceptional circumstances for the delay in filing the written statements. The court emphasized that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC were to be followed as a rule, and any extension of time beyond 30 days should be granted only in exceptional cases with clear justification.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the written statements by the trial court was justified, considering the defendants' failure to file them within the prescribed time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC were mandatory and should be followed as a rule, with any extension of time beyond 30 days requiring exceptional circumstances and clear justification. The court emphasized that the defendants had not shown exceptional circumstances for the delay in filing the written statements.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both petitions, finding no infirmity in the impugned orders of the lower courts and stating that the petitions lacked merit.
By this common judgment, both appeals are being disposed of together because there is a common question of law involved in both petitions.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions are being disposed of finally today at the motion hearing stage without admitting them for hearing.
3. Writ Petition No. 312 of 2009 (M/S) under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 16-02-2009 passed by Additional District Judge I F.T.C. - IV, Dehradun in Civil Revision NO.1 0/2009 and judgment/order dated 23-01-2009 passed by the 1st ddi. Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun in Original Suit No. 723 of 2005 Pushpa Prasad Vs. Suraj Chauhan & others.
4. Writ Petition No. 313 of 2009 (MIS) under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 03-02-2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun in Original Suit No.180 of 2004 by which the petitioner's application 40C for accepting the written statement on record was rejected.
5. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1- Smt. Pushpa Prasad filed two suits being Original Suit Nos. 180/2004 and 723/2005 on 24-03-2004 and 23-12-2005 respectively. After registration of these suits, the dates were fixed for filing the written statements and for framing of issues. Thereafter, no written statement was filed and several dates were fixed either for framing of issues or for filing the written statement. The court even beyond 90 days time allowed the defendants to file the written statement.
6. O.S. No. 180/2004 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 on 24-03-2004. Thereafter, the case was put up for filing the objection I written statement. When the written statement was not filed after a long period the plaintiff filed an application NO.36-C2 to initiate the proceeding under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. and the defendant No.1- petitioner filed the written statement alongwith an application for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. Thereafter, vide order dated 03-02-2009 the petitioner's application No. 40C for accepting written statement was rejected by the Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun. Feeling aggrieved by this, W.P. No. 313 of 2009 (M/S) has been filed by the petitioner.
7. So far as the Writ Petition No. 312 of 2009 (MIS) is concerned, the O.S. No. 723 of 2005 was instituted on 23-12-2005. Thereafter, the several dates for written statement and issues were fixed. On 27-11-2008 the written statement was filed before the court below by the defendant nos. 1 & 2 alongwith an application. On 21-11-2008 the plaintiff filed an application No. 25C before the court below that as the defendants have not filed the written statements after a long time the case may be proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. The trial court vide order dated 23-01-2009 directed that the written statements filed by the defendants be not taken on record and the application No. 25C filed by the plaintiff for proceeding the case under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. was allowed. Feeling aggrieved by this, a Civil Revision No.10/2009 , was preferred before the Addl. District Judge, Dehradun by the defendant nos. 1 & 2 and the same was dismissed vide judgment I order dated 16-02-2009. Feeling aggrieved by order of the trial court and the revisional court, W.P. No. 312 of 2009 (M/S) has been filed by the petitioners I defendant nos. 1 & 2.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Perusal of the record reveals that in O.S. No. 180/2004 vide order dated 02-072008 the court below ordered that the case be put up on 29-08-2008 for filing the objection I disposal I written statement. On 29-08-2008 the plaintiff was absent and no adverse order was passed dismissing the suit an
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
