High CourtsSingle Bench

Kabul Dhara Dhibar vs Puitu Dhora and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 September 2010 · Citation: (2010) 09 JH CK 0124

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Merathia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 8 Rule 1
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 359 words

R.K. Merathia, J.—Seen the office note.

2.

Service of notice on respondent Nos. 1 to 6 is accepted as valid.

3.

Heard the parties on merits.

4.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2004, passed by learned Munsif, at Ghatshila in Title Suit No. 13 of 2004, debarring the petitioner from filing written statement in Title Suit No. 13 of 2004 and also the order dated 13.1.2005, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to accept the written statement filed by him.

5.

From the order dated 22.12.2004, it appears that adjournment was prayed on behalf of defendant No. 1-petitioner along with other defendants, which was rejected on the ground that the defendants received summon on 13.9.2004 and appeared in the suit on 23.9.2004. Since then they have been praying for filing written statement on one ground or the other; and as per the amended provision of Order 8, Rule 1 of C.P.C., they are required to file written statement within a period of maximum 30 days from the date of service of summons and the statutory period being over, such prayer was rejected. Petitioner filed a petition for recalling the said order and for accepting the written statement filed on 7.1.2005 but the same has been rejected mainly on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the statutory period.

6.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a talk of compromise was going on and therefore there was delay in filing written statement, though such plea was not accepted by the court below.

7.

In my opinion, in the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, petitioner-defendant No. 1 be given a chance. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 1-petitioner is accepted. The parties are directed to cooperate in early disposal of the suit. However this order is subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred only) in the court below within four weeks, which the other side will be entitled to withdraw.

8.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.