SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Tri) 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T. Vaiphei, J.
Shri Bijoy Krishna Acharjee and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Shri Mithun Sharma, Son of Sudhir Sharma and Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 85 of 2016
Decided On : 23-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. T.K. Deb
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Saha, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji

The provision for filing a written statement should be construed as directory and not mandatory, and the power of the court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC is not completely taken away. Exceptional circumstances and reasons must be recorded in writing for granting an extension of time for filing the written statement.

Headnote:

Written Statement - Acceptance of Delayed Written Statement - Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC and referred to the decision of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Kailash v. Nanku and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480. The court emphasized that the provision for filing a written statement should be construed as directory and not mandatory, and that the power of the court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC is not completely taken away. The court also highlighted the need for exceptional circumstances and reasons to be recorded in writing for granting an extension of time for filing the written statement.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, and perpetual injunction. The respondents repeatedly failed to file their written statement within the statutory period, and the trial Court ultimately accepted the delayed written statement, leading to the petitioners filing a revision petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had repeatedly failed to file their written statement within the statutory period, and the trial Court had accepted the delayed written statement. The court refrained from interfering with the impugned order but directed the respondents to pay a cost of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioners for future deterrent and compensation.

Issues: The main issue was the acceptance of the delayed written statement by the trial Court and the legality of the same.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision for filing a written statement should be construed as directory and not mandatory, and the power of the court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC is not completely taken away. The court emphasized the need for exceptional circumstances and reasons to be recorded in writing for granting an extension of time for filing the written statement.

Final Decision: The civil revision was disposed of by directing the trial Court to accept the delayed written statement filed by the respondents only on the condition that they pay a cost of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioners for future deterrent and compensation. If no such payment is made within time, the trial Court will proceed with the suit in accordance with Order VIII, Rule 5(2), CPC.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Questioning the legality of the order dated 19-7-2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.4, West Tripura in Title Suit No.33 of 2015 accepting the written statement of the respondents after the lapse of about 7 months, this revision is preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners is that they instituted Title Suit No.33 of 2015 before the said Civil Court against the respondents for declaration their title, confirmation of their possession and perpetual injunction. The suit was fixed on 21-7-2015 for filing of written statement by the respondents. On 30-5-2015, on the prayer of the respondents, the Court allowed time till 17-6-2015 to file their written statement. On their prayer, further time was granted by the court till 21-7-2015. On 21-7-2015, no written statement was filed, but, on the prayer of the respondents, further time granted to them till 17-8-2015. On 17-8-2015, the respondents failed to file the written statement and were again granted time till 26-9-2015 to file their written statement. However, on requisition, the record of the suit was sent to the learned District Judge, West Tripura in Misc. Appeal No.22 of 2015. The record was received back by the trial Court on 30-6-2016 whereupon the trial Court fixed 13-7-2016 for order. The case was again listed on 13-7-2016 and 18-7-2016, but no written statement was filed by the respondents. However, the written statement was filed thereafter. On 19-7-2016, the trial Court heard both the counsel for the parties on whether to accept the written statement so filed or not. Ultimately, the trial Court passed the impugned order accepting the written statement of the respondents. Aggrieved by this, the revision petition has been filed.

3. Before proceeding further, I may proceed to reproduce hereunder the relevant portions of the impugned order, which reads thus:

“In this case, the defendants have submitted W/S beyond statutory period of 90 days and as per case record, it is found that the Court has allowed time to the defendants for filing of W/S and the fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff but the plaintiff in very inception has not given any objection or has not preferred any appeal in the appropriate forum against the granting of time by the court. Only after a belated stage i.e. after lapse of seven months the plaintiff has filed a petition not to accept the W/S of the defendants. In this respect the, decision passed in AIR 2010 Gauhati 155 is worth mentioning because in that case it was categorically mentioned in para 15 & 16 of the judgment that there is nothing on record to show that the defendant had not assigned good reasons for seeking extension of time and since the Court itself allowed the defendant to file W/S beyond statutory period the same cannot be refused on the ground of delay and the W/S can be allowed to be filed.

So, following the letter and spirit of the above judgment and on (sic) of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that for fair ends of justice and for giving the party real opportunity for contesting the case, I accept W/S of the defendants No.1 to 5 at this stage.”

4. Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC deals with the provision relating to written statement of the defendant, which reads thus:

“1. Written statement.—The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top