Gandhi Dalbehera vs Deepchand Keshwani and Others

N. Prusty, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the defendant No.3 in T.S. No.75 of 2004 challenging the order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bolangir in above said suit, whereby the learned Court has rejected the petition filed by the defendant No.3 to accept the written statement filed by him, since the same was filed after expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days.

Heard Mr. C. Samantaroy, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Samantaroy submits that it is well settled that the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the written statement under Order 8, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is a directory one but not mandatory and in that view of the matter, learned Court below, ought to have accepted the written statement filed by the defendant No.3, even though the same was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon and cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi and Ors. reported in 2006 (I) OLR (SC) 8 as well as decision of this Court in the case of Mangelal Jhajharia Vs. Govindram Girdhar and Another, .

Keeping in view the nature of grievance and submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and after going through the materials available on record as well as the decisions cited by the learned Counsel, in my considered view, no useful purpose shall be served in issuing notice to opposite parties and in keeping this matter pending.

Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners and after going through the decisions relied upon and cited by him, the order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior-Division), Bolangir in T.S. No.75 of 2004 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court to re-consider and dispose of the same afresh giving a chance of hearing to both the sides as well as keeping in view the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi and Ors. reported in 2006 (I) OLR (SC) 8 and the decision of this Court in the case of Mangelal Jhajharia v. Govindram Girdhar reported in 2006 (I) OLR 428.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

In view of disposal of the writ petition, Misc. Case also stands disposed of.

Requisites for communication of this order be filed by Friday (07.04.06).

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.