Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Tiwari vs Pankaj Singh on 20 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 5221 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJKUMAR TIWARI S/O SHRI RAMSAJEEVAN TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST KRAPALPUR WARD NO. 16
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SATNA TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SARANG SONI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PANKAJ SINGH S/O SHRI MANSUKH SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
CHANAKYAPURI COLONY SATNA TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SARTHAK JAIN S/O SHRI UMESH JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN
R/O HANUMAN CHOWK SATNA TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE COLLECTOR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1
AND 2)
(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 3/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/21/2022 10:47:20 AM 2 This Miscellaneous petition is filed by Defendant no. 1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of order dated 11/06/2022 closing the right of the defendant to file the written statement and order dated 28/09/2022 to take written statement which was filed on record on 14/06/2022 in Civil Suit No. 64-A/2022 by the learned 7th District Judge, Satna.
It is submitted that first date of appearance of the defendant is 3/03/2022. There was intervening summer vacation effected from 23rd May, 2022 to 10th June, 2022 and, thereafter, on that period of vacation, written statement could not be prepared. When short adjournment was sought on 11/06/2022, then adjournment was refused and the case was fixed on 14 th June, 2022.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zolba Vs. Keshao and others 2008(2) M.P.L.J. 478 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are directory in nature. The delay in filing the written statement can be condoned in exceptional circumstances.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies Private Limited 2014(2) M.P.L.J. 315 wherein it is held that the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. for extension of time for filing written statement, the provision being in domain of procedural law is directory not mandatory. The extension of time may be allowed if it is needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional. The High Court ought to have permitted the appellant to file written statement, beyond the period prescribed in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C.
Reliance is also placed on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/21/2022 10:47:20 AM 3 Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed L.R. MS. Rohini 2020 (3) M.P.L.J. 37 where again it is held that delay in filing the written statement is not condonable yet Supreme Court in the unique circumstances of the case directed the appellant to file written statement subject to payment of cost to the respondent.
On the other hand, Shri Akhilesh Jain opposes the prayer and submits that in the case of Salim Khan Vs. Nargis Begum 2015 2 MPWN 41, a coordinate Bench of this Court has held that filing of written statement beyond 30 days is not automatic. Extension of time beyond 90 days can be given only showing adequate and special reasons and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition.
Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in Bismilla Bee Vs. Arjuman Aara and others 2014 3 MPLJ 593 where it is held that extension of time to file written statement cannot be granted as routine, exceptional or special reasons must for the same.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the opinion that since the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are directory and not mandatory as held by the Supreme Court in Sandeep Thapar (supra) and Zolba (supra), in the interest of justice and taking clue from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Desh Raj (supra), time can be granted to the petitioner/defendant to file the written statement which is already on record subject to payment of some reasonable cost.
The fact of the matter is that it is admitted by Shri Akhilesh Jain that there was vacation upto 10th June. 11 th June was the Saturday, therefore, the circumstance is made for not filing the written statement on 11 th June, 2022 on the ground of some confusion that it was the holiday for the District Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/21/2022 10:47:20 AM 4 though it was only a holiday for the High Court and not the District Court.
Thus, in view of such special circumstance, the impugned orders are quashed and the trial court is directed to accept the written statement which was filed by the defendant on 14th June, 2022 along with an application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the Defendant and to be paid to the plaintiffs in equal proportion.
In above terms, the petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/21/2022 10:47:20 AM