Back
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Nanda Kumar Singh, J
Smt. Krishna Das Bhowmick —Petitioner
versus
Ajoy Kumar Dutta and Ors. —Respondents
C.R.P. No. 42 of 2013 (SH)
Decided on 10.7. 2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:D. Mazumdar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
After expiry of period for filing written statement mentioned in Order VIII, Rule 1 of C.P.C written statement can be filed only in exceptional circumstances.
Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 8 Rule 1—Written statement—Limitation—After expiry of period for filing written statement mentioned in Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. defendants can file written statement only when they could show special reasons for allowing them to file written statement—Written statement could not be filed within time permissible under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC and due to lapses on part of Counsel appearing for defendants there was considerable delay in filing written statement—Impugned order allowing application upheld. (Paras 5 to 10)
(ii) Constitution of India—Article 227—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope and ambit—Revisional Jurisdiction of Court under Section 115 and Article 227 of Constitution of India is circumscribed and limited—Normally, High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction only when there is material infirmity is passing impugned order or impugned order was passed by Court below without any jurisdiction. (Para 7)
Result: Revision Petition disposed of with directions.
Nandakumar Singh, J.—Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Assistant Judge, Shillong dated 2.5.2013 passed in TS No.3 (H) 2011 allowing the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to file the written statement subject to the payment of cost of Rs.2,000.
2. For this judgment proposing to pass by this Court. it may not be required to issue notice to the respondents. i.e. defendant No.3 and 4 inasmuch as the impugned order dated 2.5.2013 is not going to be quashed in whole.
3. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff strenuously contended that only for the purpose of delaying the speedy disposal of T.S. Nos. 3 (H) 2001. applications had been filed one after another by the different persons for impleadment as defendants. It is further stated that one application was filed by Smt. E. Eblura Khongthohrem for impleadment as a defendant in the TS No. 3 (H) 2001 claiming to be the second wife of the petitioner/plaintiff. The order of the learned Trial Court below allowing to implead Smt. E. Eblura Khongthohrem as defendant in TS No.3 (H) 2001 had been set aside by this Court (High Court) by an order dated 14.12.2007 passed in CR (P) No. (SH) 38/2006. Thereafter, other two persons. i.e. respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the present revision petition filed another application for allowing them to be impleaded as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 respectively in TS No. 3 (H) 2001 claiming themselves to be the sons of the petitioner/plaintiff born to Smt E. Eblura Khongthohrem. The said order of the Trial Court for allowing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as defendants in the TS No. 3 (H) 2001 was not assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision petition or otherwise in the High Court. Therefore. the said order of the Trial Court for imleadment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in TS. No.3 (H) 2001 had attained finality.
4. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the record itself shows very clearly that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had been given sufficient time to file the written statement. Inspite of that, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not file their written statement and ultimately only for delaying the proceedings of TS No.3 (H) 2001, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application for allowing them to file the written statement and also for setting aside the order for proceeding the TS No.3 (H) 2001 ex-parte against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By the impugned order dated 2.5.2013 passed in TS No.3 (H) 2001, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, i.e. defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had been allowed to file the written statement.
5. Mr. D. Mazurmdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that after expiry of the period for filing the written statement mentioned in Order VIII. Rule 1 of the C.P.C. the defendants can file the written statement only when they could show special reasons for allowing them to file the written statement. In other words after expiry of the period for filing the written statement mentioned in Order VIII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C written statement can be filed only in exceptional circumstances. Therefore. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no exceptional circumstances for allowing defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to file the written statement.
6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 2.5.2013 passed in TS No. 3 (H) 2001. it appears that the learned Trial Court had given the reasons for allowing the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to file the written statement reasons amongst others are : .
(i) The personal file of TS No. 3 (H) 20101 of the defendants/respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had been misplaced by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. As a result. the written statement could not be filed within the time permissible under Order VIII. Rule 1 of the CPC and due to the lapses on
