Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Pandey vs Urmila Pandey on 11 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:23242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 1062 of 2024
Jagdish Pandey, S/ late Sheo Nath Pandey, R/o Pandey Complex, Parsudih,
Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Urmila Pandey, W/o late Ramji Pandey
2. Mola Pandey, D/o late Ramji Pandey
Both resident of plot no. 17-18, Jaripatka Ring Road, Near Sai Mandir, PO
& P.S. Heera Nagar, Jariptka, Nagpur, 440014, Maharashtra
3. Dhanwanti Pandey, W/o late Awadhesh Pandey
4. Rishi Anand Pandey, S/o late Awadhesh Pandey
5. Rishav Pandey, S/o late Awadhesh Pandey
6. Kamlesh Pandey, S/o late Sheo Nath Pandey
O.P. Nos. 3 to 6 are resident of Pandey Complex, Parsudih, Main Road, PO
& PS Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
7. Vivekanand Pandey, S/o late D.N. Pandey
8. Devanand Pandey, S/o late D.N. Pandey
9. Poonam, W/o late Madan Mohan Pandey
10. Kisslay Anand, S/o late Madan Mohan Pandey
11. Kriti Anand, S/o late Madan Mohan Pandey
Resp. Nos. 7 to 11 are residents of 21, College Road, Pamoth Nagar, Behind
Gopal Govind Hotel, Parusdih, PO & PS Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District-East
Singhbhum
12. Kalawati, W/o Ramanand Pandey
13. Suresh Pandey, S/o late Ramanand Pandey
14. Ramesh Pandey, S/o late Ramanand Pandey
Resp. Nos. 12 to 14 are residents of Pandey Complex, Parsudih, Main Road,
PO & PS Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
15. Janardan Pandey, S/o late Sarvanand Pandey
16. Ramanuj Pandey, S/o late Sarvanand Pandey
Resp. Nos. 15 and 16 are resident of Pandey Complex, Parsudih, Main Road,
PO & PS Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
Mrs. Juhi Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party Nos. 1&2 : Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate
------
Order No. 04 / Dated : 11.08.2025.
1. Defendant is before this Court on being debarred from filing written statement in Original Title Suit No.159 of 2022.
2. The learned Trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that the summons 1 2025:JHHC:23242 was duly served on 24.01.2023 and written statement was filed on 07.03.2024.
3. Defendant No. 1/ Petitioner had not appeared before the learned Trial Court and consequently, paper publication was made on 12.07.2023 after which he appeared.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the pending case. The statutory time limit to file the written statement within 90 days is directory and not mandatory in nature as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s R.N. Jadi & Brothers & Ors. V. Subhaschandra (2007) 6 SCC 420.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs/ opposite parties that the conduct of the petitioner in avoiding the process is deliberate and despite appearance before the Trial Court, took a wrong plea as noted in para 5 of the impugned order that they had not received/ being served the copy of the plaint. This was false statement on record, reflecting the mala- fide intention of the petitioner. The same plea has been repeated in present civil miscellaneous petition at para 10 and 11.
6. It is further submitted that the only reason assigned in the application for accepting the written statement, is a mishappening in the family and details of it has not at all be given.
7. It is a partition suit where defendants are the members of the joint family and having appeared on notice, only to delay the adjudicatory process written statement was not filed and therefore, the learned Trial Court was constrained to debar the defendant from filing the written statement.
8. On the point of law, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties that although the provision under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not mandatory but directory in nature, but it does not give unfettered right to the defendants to file written statement without assigning any reason at any stage after the statutory period.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is apparent that the petitioners had appeared as defendant nos.1 & 5 on 03.08.23 and on 31.08.23. The case was fixed on 10.08.23 in which a time petition was filed for filing the written statement on behalf of both the defendants, which was allowed and the next date was fixed for 24.08.23, but no written statement was filed. Consequently, on 31.08.23 petitioner was debarred from 2 2025:JHHC:23242 filing written statement.
10.It is true that the provision for filing written statement within stipulated time of 90 days is directory and not mandatory in nature. Nevertheless, law is settled that there should be cogent and convincing reason to grant extension of time, lest object of bringing the amendment shall be defeated. Order 8 Rule1 of CPC mandates the written statement to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him. If he fails to file the same within the said period he may be permitted to file within 90 days for reasons to be recorded in writing. One of the reasons for the proverbial delays in civil adjudication is that the provisions of code of civil procedure are not strictly applied. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this context noted in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377. It noted various factors contributing to delays which included unmerited adjournments. It held that:
"31. Apart from the above reasons, the other vital reasons include the over-
tolerant nature of the courts below while extending their olive branch to grant adjournment at the drop of the hat and thereby bringing the entire judicial process to a grinding halt. It is crucial to understand that the wheels of justice must not merely turn, they must turn without friction, without bringing it to a grinding halt due to unwarranted delay. It is for such reasons that the system itself is being ridiculed not only by the litigant public but also by the general public, thereby showing signs of constant fear of delay in the minds of public which might occur during the resolution of dispute, dissuading them from knocking at the doors of justice. All the stakeholders of the system have to be alive to this alarming situation and should thwart any attempt to pollute the stream of judicial process and same requires to be dealt with iron hands and curbed by nipping them at the bud, as otherwise the confidence of the public in the system would slowly be eroded. Be it the litigant public or Member of the Bar or anyone connected in the process of dispensation of justice, should not be allowed to dilute the judicial processes by delaying the said process by in any manner whatsoever. As held by this Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR (1977) 4 SCC 467 the answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant judge. This analogy requires to be stretched in the instant case and to all the pending matters by necessarily holding that every stakeholder in the process of dispensation of justice is required to act swiftly, diligently, without giving scope for any delay in dispensation of justice. Thus, an onerous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the presiding officer of every court, who should be cautious and vigilant against such indolent acts and persons who attempt to thwart quick dispensation of justice. A response is expected from all parties involved, with a special emphasis on the presiding officer. The presiding officer must exercise due diligence to ensure that proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delays. While it's important to maintain a friendly and cooperative atmosphere with the members of the Bar, this should not be misused as a pretext for frequent adjournment requests. A word of 3 2025:JHHC:23242 caution to the learned members of the Bar, at this juncture, would also be necessary because of they being considered as another wheel of the chariot of dispensation of justice. They should be circumspect in seeking adjournments, that too in old matters or matters which have been pending for decades and desist from making request or prayer for grant of adjournments for any reason whatsoever and should not take the goodness of the presiding officer as his/her weakness".
It has been held in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639 :
"20. This provision has come up for interpretation before this Court in number of cases. No doubt, the words "shall not be later than ninety days"
do not take away the power of the court to accept written statement beyond that time and it is also held that the nature of the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantive law. At the same time, this Court has also mandated that time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344] : (SCC p. 364, para 21) "21. ... There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1."
Mohd. Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 513 :
10. The question came up for consideration before this Court in M. Srinivasa Prasad v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India [(2007) 10 SCC 246 :
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1095 : (2007) 5 Scale 173] , wherein a Division Bench of this Court upon noticing Kailash [(2005) 4 SCC 480] held as under:
"7. Since neither the trial court nor the High Court have indicated any reason to justify the acceptance of the written statement after the expiry of time fixed, we set aside the orders of the trial court and that of the High Court. The matter is remitted to the trial court to consider the matter afresh in the light of what has been stated in Kailash case [(2005) 4 SCC 480] . The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs." [Ed.: As observed in Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 431 p. 433, para 7.]
11.In the present case, there is no reason stated for the delay in filing the written statement. What has been stated is some mishappening in the family, but the said reason is indefinite to make any sense out of it. It has not been disclosed 4 2025:JHHC:23242 as what was the nature of mishap, who suffered illness and what prevented the defendant to file written statement. In such circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -5